NOVEMBER 2005

GREENLAND

1655

Climate Variability and Sugarcane Yield in Louisiana

DAVID GREENLAND
Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana (Manuscript received 26 November 2004, in final form 16 February 2005) ABSTRACT This paper seeks to understand the role that climate variability has on annual yield of sugarcane in Louisiana. Unique features of sugarcane growth in Louisiana and nonclimatic, yield-influencing factors make this goal an interesting and challenging one. Several methods of seeking and establishing the relations between yield and climate variables are employed. First, yieldclimate relations were investigated at a single research station where crop variety and growing conditions could be held constant and yield relations could be established between a predominant older crop variety and a newer one. Interviews with crop experts and a literature survey were used to identify potential climatic factors that control yield. A statistical analysis was performed using statewide yield data from the American Sugar Cane League from 1963 to 2002 and a climate database. Yield values for later years were adjusted downward to form an adjusted yield dataset. The climate database was principally constructed from daily and monthly values of maximum and minimum temperature and daily and monthly total precipitation for six cooperative weather-reporting stations representative of the area of sugarcane production. The influence of 74 different, though not independent, climate-related variables on sugarcane yield was investigated. The fact that a climate signal exists is demonstrated by comparing mean values of the climate variables corresponding to the upper and lower third of adjusted yield values. Most of these mean-value differences show an intuitively plausible difference between the high- and low-yield years. The difference between means of the climate variables for years corresponding to the upper and lower third of annual yield values for 13 of the variables is statistically significant at or above the 90% level. A correlation matrix was used to identify the variables that had the largest influence on annual yield. Four variables [called here critical climatic variables (CCV)], mean maximum August temperature, mean minimum February temperature, soil water surplus between April and September, and occurrence of autumn (fall) hurricanes, were built into a model to simulate adjusted yield values. The CCV model simulates the yield value with an rmse of 5.1 t ha1. The mean of the adjusted yield data over the study period was 60.4 t ha1, with values for the highest and lowest years being 73.1 and 50.6 t ha1, respectively, and a standard deviation of 5.9 t ha1. Presumably because of the almost constant high water table and soil water availability, higher precipitation totals, which are inversely related to radiation and temperature, tend to have a negative effect on the yields. Past trends in the values of critical climatic variables and general projections of future climate suggest that, with respect to the climatic environment and as long as land drainage is continued and maintained, future levels of sugarcane yield will rise in Louisiana.

1. Introduction
The quantitative establishment of relations between climate variability and crop yield values is vital because of the economic importance of crops and interest in the future of agriculture under possible climate change in the twenty-first century. The sugarcane crop in Louisi-

Corresponding author address: Dr. David Greenland, Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, 149 E. B. Doran Bldg., Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70803. E-mail: greenlan@lsu.edu

ana is the focus of this paper. The gross farm value for sugarcane in the state in 2003 was almost $360 million (Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service 2003), or about $600 million when profits to the producer, processor, and landlords are all considered. The state has highly variable weather from year to year. One of the early French explorers, de Bienville, wrote in 1734 This country is subject to such great vicissitude that one can almost not count on crops at all. Now there is too much drought, now too much rain (Morris 2000). Almost 150 years later, in 1872, L. Boucherau used the same word when he reported a remarkable fluctuation [in annual sugarcane yield] . . . is attributable to the

2005 American Meteorological Society

1656

JOURNAL OF APPLIED METEOROLOGY

VOLUME 44

vicissitudes of our climate (Boucherau 1872). Through to the present day, state sugarcane experts annually comment on the influence of the weather on the yield of the current year. In the autumn of 2004, Louisiana Agricultural Center sugarcane expert Dr. B. Legendre said, An extremely wet spring preceded an unusually dry summer making growing conditions difficult . . . (Courreges 2004). Despite such interest, a literature search has found no attempts to quantify the climate signal in sugarcane yield. This is partly due to the difficulty in obtaining consistent, long-record, yield data and to the multitude of other, nonclimatic, factors that influence the yield. The present paper seeks to rectify the lack of systematic studies on climatesugarcane yield relations and to identify quantitatively the climate signal in Louisiana sugarcane yields. In general, cropclimate relations are investigated empirically by regressing yield values against one or more climatic variables or with the use of crop models that are mechanistic computer simulations. The only comprehensive crop models for sugarcane have been developed for areas in the world where temperatures below freezing do not occur (OLeary 2000). No sugarcane crop model has been calibrated and validated for conditions in Louisiana. Therefore, this initial study adopts an empirical approach, but one that implicitly incorporates within-growing-season variability and year-to-year variability of what are called herein critical climate variables (CCVs). The results of this empirical approach suggest at least two ways in which a sugarcane crop model such as CANEGRO 3.5 (CheerooNayamuth et al. 2000) might be adapted for Louisiana. First, the values and number of the crop model genetic coefficients should be reviewed in light of the particular CCVs identified in the findings below. Second, greater emphasis should be given in CANEGRO to yield at actual harvest time as opposed to the time of physiological maturity. Previous empirical studies on sugarcane yield have been few and have focused on countries outside the United States (Gangopadhyaya and Sarker 1964; Subbaramayya and Kumar 1980; Kumar 1984; Biswas 1988). Several of these studies are typical of the use of traditional regression techniques. However, Hu and Buyanovsky (2003) have demonstrated that, for corn in Missouri, yields cannot be explained by average-growing-season climatic values and the withinseason variation is important. This, of course, is one reason why computer-simulation crop models, which use daily data and time steps, are more commonly employed at present. A focus on within-season variation may be important for Louisiana sugarcane. Hu and Buyanovsky (2003) also introduce the idea of analyzing within-season variation of climate variables during

above- and below-average yield years. This idea is pursued in this study and is extended by a method that incorporates the results of climate variables acting in sequence throughout the crop life history. This paper first details the production of sugarcane in Louisiana. Different sources of yield data and nonclimatic factors affecting yield are discussed. The quantitative analysis considers data sources and preprocessing of data, a quantile analysis, and the development of a model that uses CCVs to simulate annual yield values.

2. Sugarcane in Louisiana
Sugarcane is mostly grown in the southern part of the state (Fig. 1). The crop has traditionally been cultivated over a 4-yr cycle. The typical case is that part of the land is left fallow until vegetative planting in August and September. The young shoots grow up to about 1 m in height by the time of the first winter freeze. New sprouts grow up from the below-ground biomass during the following spring and summer, and this gives rise to what is called the plant-cane crop. Maximum growth rates occur in June, July, and August. The plant stands about 2.53.0 m tall in late August and has a very dense canopy. In recent years, harvest has taken place from late September to early January. Producers seek to harvest the crop before it is damaged by freezing. The specific harvest date is determined by a preestablished contract for acceptance of the cane by the local sugar mill. The harvest in Louisiana takes place before the crop is physiologically mature. In contrast, sugarcane in Hawaii may be grown continuously for 2 or 3 yr before it harvested. The below-ground and the lower aboveground parts of the Louisiana plant-cane crop are left in the ground after the first years harvest and regrow in the third year after planting to become the first-stubble, or ratoon, crop. In a similar way, a second-stubble crop regrows during the fourth year after planting. A more recent variety, LCP 85-384, has permitted third-, or even more, stubble crops. There is a decline in yield from the same plant as it progresses from the plantcane year through the successive stubble years. This stubble-year-related decline in yield is not treated explicitly in this paper because the statewide yield data for any given year include the different yields from all of the stubble-year plants. Louisiana sugarcane is mostly grown on alluvial lowlands. Roots can extend to 1 m or more below the soil surface, and so they can almost always access the generally high water table. As a result, high rainfall amounts can sometimes be detrimental to sugarcane in the state. Improved drainage usually increases crop yields. The principal reasons why it is difficult to quantify

NOVEMBER 2005

GREENLAND

1657

FIG. 1. Principal area of sugarcane production in Louisiana (shaded).

the climatic signal in Louisiana sugarcane yield are the impact of increasing technology over time and the abundance of nonclimatic factors that affect yield. Nonclimatic factors that affect yield include insects, plant disease, weed pressure, soil variability, the mechanism used for harvesting, and drainage problems. Several nonclimatic factors act in concert with climatic factors to affect the sugarcane yield. For example, hot, dry weather conditions can reduce sugarcane-borer numbers (Reagan 2001).

3. Sugarcane yield data

This study focuses on yield of sugarcane per planted hectare and uses the units of metric tons (106 Mg) of cane per hectare (t ha1). This unit is chosen because it allows for the greatest potential for consistency from year to year within the context of the variability of climatic factors. By using the factor 2.219 512 2, U.S. (short) tons per acre were converted to metric tons per hectare. Other units that could potentially be used, such as the amount of sugar produced per year, introduce greater complexity and more variables in terms of plant physiology and biochemistry. The longest consistent dataset for statewide yield has been produced by the American Sugarcane League (ASCL; available online at http://www.amscl.org/SugarIndustry.pdf; accessed 8 October 2004; also see the appendix). The ASCL dataset from 1963 to 2002 is central to this study. This investigation also uses yield data from the Saint (St.)

Gabriel, Louisiana, Sugar Research Station (Iberville Parish) for a single variety, CP 70-321. The St. Gabriel CP 70-321 yield dataset started in 1984. These data are used to provide an understanding of the effect of climatic and nonclimatic factors on sugarcane yield in a situation in which as many variables as possible, such as soil type, crop variety, and spatial variability, may be kept constant. The St. Gabriel data are also used for the downward adjustment of yield for the most popular, high-yielding variety, LCP 85-384, which has dominated the Louisianan sugarcane crop in the last decade. Data from variety tests at St. Gabriel are reported in Research Station Annual Progress Reports from 1990 and provide annual yield values from this one location for the CP 65-357, CP 70-321, LCP 82-89, HoCP 85-845, and LCP 85-384 varieties. The progress reports also provide data on the proportion of these varieties that made up the statewide crop annually from 1990 to 2002 (Table 1). In 2002, 85% of the statewide crop consisted of LCP 85-384. The proportional data show the gradual increase of dominance of LCP 85-384 over the period. Previous to the introduction of LCP 85-384, CP 70-321 had been a very popular variety among producers since its adoption in the mid-1970s. During the period from 1963 to the mid-1970s no one variety has enjoyed sustained popularity for more than five years. Between 1997 and 2002, when both CP 70-321 and LCP 85-384 varieties were grown, St. Gabriel data show that CP 70-321 produced, on average, 81% of the yield of LCP 85-384. This factor was used along with the proportion

1658

JOURNAL OF APPLIED METEOROLOGY TABLE 1. Data for adjustment of reported statewide yield data for increase of yield of variety LCP 85-384. St. Gabriel yields Statewide percent CP 70-321 and other (%) 15 22 29 42 57 71 87 97 99 LCP 85-384 (%) 85 78 71 58 43 29 13 3 1

VOLUME 44

Statewide yields Reported (t ha1) 73.9 73.5 74.8 82.1 75.0 70.1 69.5 64.4 61.3 Adjusted (t ha1) 62.0 62.6 64.7 73.1 68.9 66.3 67.8 64.0 61.1

Year 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 19972002 avg

CP 70-321 (t ha1) 89.7 107.9 93.4 117.6 121.0 110.5

LCP 85-384 (t ha1) 109.9 130.3 103.4 157.1 135.2 156.9

106.7

132.1

of LCP 85-384 grown in the state in a given year to adjust the ASCL yield value from 1994 to 2002 downward so as to be more comparable in varietal terms with the yield data of earlier years back to the mid-1970s. These adjusted ASCL yield values and the St. Gabriel yield values for CP 70-321 are presented in Fig. 2, and the data and results for the adjustment are given in Table 1. The adjusted yield value for any given year (AdjY) is given by AdjY [(X RepY) (Y 0.81 RepY)]/100, where RepY is the reported ASCL yield for that year, X is the percentage of CP 70-321 and other varieties planted, and Y is the percentage of LCP85-384 planted. Most time series of crop yields in North America show a distinct linear or exponential rise in yield after the 1950s or 1960s that is attributed to many factors but is often collectively called a technology trend. Examples of crop yields that show a rise in yield resulting

FIG. 2. Comparison of annual sugarcane yields between the statewide ASCL data adjusted downward after 1993 to account for the better-yielding LCP 85-384 and yield of CP 70-321 at St. Gabriel Research Station. The ASCL data refer to statewide averages and include many different crop varieties. The St. Gabriel data refer to one crop variety on a small research plot.

from technology after the 1950s are given by Mjelde and Keplinger (1998) for winter wheat and sorghum in Texas, by Taylor (1996) for corn yield in Iowa, and by Taylor (2002) for total U.S. corn yield. Mjelde and Keplinger (1998) mention the following factors as contributing to the technology trend: return of demobilized military personnel after World War II, education leading to an increase in the number of agricultural scientists, and the introduction of hybrids, fertilizers, herbicides, and insecticides. All of these and other technological factors have played some role in Louisiana sugarcane production. Breeding efforts began in the 1920s (Gravois 2001). During the mid-1990s, combine harvesters that cut stalks into sections or billets were introduced (Hoy 2001). Producers generally believe that this harvest method will increase harvest efficiency. The ASCL data used in this study should ideally also be adjusted to allow for the beneficial effect of the combine-harvester technology. However, sufficient quantitative information is not available to formulate such an adjustment. The use of clean seed cane is another technique that has been beneficial over the last decade in reducing ratoon stunting disease (RSD). The yield of CP 70-321 at the St. Gabriel station clearly shows an increase that may be attributed to technology (Fig. 2). According to the former station farm manager, the yield increase after the mid-1990s is at least partly due to better control of RSD by using disease-free seed cane and improved drainage. However, statewide, when the spectacular yield increase attributed to LCP 85-384 is removed from the data series (as in Fig. 2), despite all of the above technological advances, no obvious technology-related increasing trend is seen in the Louisiana yield data since 1963. Apart from the LCP 85-384 adjustment from 1994 described above, no further adjustment was made to the ASCL yield data.

NOVEMBER 2005

GREENLAND

1659

4. Relation of climate factors and yield

The qualitative investigations of the potential climatic factors controlling Louisiana sugarcane yield described in the last section set the stage for a quantitative analysis. In agreement with Hu and Buyanovsky (2003), initial analyses that attempted to explain yield by average-growing-season climate variables were not found to be effective. This section describes the data used in the current analysis and the methods employed. Two main methods are used for quantitatively identifying the climate signal in the annual sugarcane yield. The first method is a quantile analysis that examines differences in the values of climatic variables for years in the top and bottom thirds of yield values. The second method is the development of a simulation model based on climatic variables that individually display the greatest correlation with yield values.

a. Data sources and preprocessing

As explained above, the dependent variable used in this study is the annual value of gross cane per hectare that was reported by the ASCL. These data are believed to be accurate to 6.7 t ha1. The original data were adjusted after 1994 for the better-yielding LCP 85-384 variety. Thus, the adjusted dataset that is used in the following analyses relates mostly to the CP 70-321 variety, at least back to the mid-1970s. A climate database was assembled using daily and monthly values of maximum and minimum temperatures and daily and monthly total precipitation reported at six National Weather Service cooperative reporting stations in the sugarcane-growing area. The stations (Table 2) were selected to give a good geographic coverage of the area and because they had an almost continuous record for the entire 19632002 period. Values for days of missing data were entered into the dataset using the value taken from the nearest surrogate of the other five stations that had data for the day in question. Data from the second-nearest surrogate station were used if the first surrogate also had missing data for that

day. The surrogate stations used are listed in Table 2. Data in the revised dataset were then averaged for each day across the six stations to provide regional information. In forming intermediate files of these data for eventual input into the analysis, the data record was taken as starting from 1 January 1962 to allow for the cane that was planted in the summer of 1962 and added to the yield of 1963. Precipitation data in support of investigations at the St. Gabriel Research Station came from the St. Gabriel station itself, and temperature data were taken from the Ben Hur Research Station, which is approximately 8 km northwest of St. Gabriel. Monthly water balance data (soil water surplus, and soil water deficit) for Louisiana Climate Division 8, South Central, were provided by the Louisiana Office of State Climatology. The terms soil water surplus and soil water deficit are used in this study with respect to the field capacity of the soil. A hurricane database was compiled for the study. This database listed characteristics, where available, of all hurricanes and tropical storms that passed over the southern Louisiana areas of Climate Divisions 7, 8, and 9, during August, September, and October. Data were obtained from an Internet document on Louisiana hurricanes (Roth 2004) and from the archives of the National Hurricane Center (http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastall.shtml, accessed 14 October 2004).

b. Climatic variables included in the analysis

Initial analyses and consideration of potential climatic factors controlling Louisiana sugarcane yield indicated that a wide net of climatic variables needed to be included initially in the quantitative analysis to identify the climate signal in the yield values. Overall, the study employed 74 different, though not independent, climate-related variables (Table 3). Table 3 lists the definitions for the climate-related variables that are used in the following text. The variables are in six different classes. Class 1 includes the number of rain days with greater than 6.4 mm of rain in specified

TABLE 2. Climate stations that provided daily data. Station name Ben Hur, LSU Agricultural Center (AgC) St. Gabriel, LSU AgC Bunkie Donaldsonville Houma Jennings Morgan City Reserve Index No. None None 1287 2534 4407 4700 6394 7767 Lat 3022 3016 3058 3004 2935 3012 2941 3003 Lon 9110 9106 9211 9102 9044 9240 9111 9035 Period of record 1963present 1984present 1956present 1930present 1930present 1948present 1930present 1948present First and second surrogates

Jennings, Donaldsonville Reserve, Morgan City Morgan City, Reserve Bunkie, Morgan City Houma, Donaldsonville Donaldsonville, Houma

1660

JOURNAL OF APPLIED METEOROLOGY TABLE 3. Climatic variables used in the analysis.

VOLUME 44

1) No. of rain days in specified periods Rain days with 6.4 mm rain in Aug and Sep of previous year Rain days with 6.4 mm rain in Aug and Sep of current year (RDc) No. of (harvest time) rain days with 6.4 mm rain in Sep, Oct, Nov 2) Variables related to freezes No. of days of occurrence of freeze of 5.6C or less on 1 day in Dec of previous year or Jan or Feb of current crop year Lowest min temperature (C) of any day in Dec, Jan, and Feb prior to the growing season Freezing degree-days for days with temperatures less than 5.6C in Dec, Jan, and Feb prior to the growing season The occurrence of a freeze of less than 5.6C in Dec (coded in binary form: 1 yes, 0 no) 3) Soil water balance variables for Louisiana Climate Division 8 Surpluses (mm): Total soil water surplus in Jun, Jul, and Aug (SuJJA) Total soil water surplus in Jun, Jul, Aug, and Sep (SuJS) Total soil water surplus in May, Jun, Jul, Aug, and Sep (SuMS) Total soil water surplus in Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, and Sep (SuAS) Total soil water surplus in Sep, Oct, and Nov Deficits: Total soil water deficit in Apr and May Total soil water deficit in Jun, Jul, and Aug Total soil water deficit in Aug and Sep Climate Division 8 precipitation totals (mm): Total precipitation in Jul and Aug Total precipitation in Jul, Aug, and Sep Total precipitation between May and Sep Total precipitation in Oct and Nov Total precipitation between Sep and Nov Total precipitation between Oct and Dec Total precipitation between Sep and Dec 4) Area-average climate factors (avg of six stationssee Table 2) Monthly mean max temperature for all individual months JanDec (C), including Aug (TxAug), Sep (TxSep), Nov (TxNov), and Dec (TxDec) Monthly mean min temperature for all individual months JanDec (C), including Feb (TiF) Monthly total precipitation for all individual months JanDec (mm), including Apr (PptAp), Jul (PptJuly), Aug (PptAug), and Nov (PptNov) 5) Growing degree-days (GDDs) (C day) Total growing degree-days by month for all individual months Mar (GDDMar) through Oct, including Aug (GDDAug) Total growing degree-days by groups of months: Total GDDs in Jul and Aug Total GDDs in Jun, Jul, and Aug Total GDDs in May, Jun, Jul, and Aug Total GDDs in Jun, Jul, Aug, and Sep Total GDDs in May, Jun, Jul, Aug, and Sep Total GDDs in Mar, Apr, and May Total GDDs in MarOct 6) Fall (autumn) hurricanes and tropical storms FallHurr occurrence of tropical storms and hurricanes passing over Louisiana Climate Divisions 7, 8, and 9 in Aug, Sep, Oct, and Nov (coded in binary form: 1 yes, 0 no)

periods. A value of 6.4 mm was taken as a threshold because lesser amounts of rain were likely to be intercepted by, and evaporated from, the dense foliage of the cane plant without ever being available to the underlying soil. Some of the rain-related variables were designed to focus on certain periods of special interest. One period of interest was August and September of the year previous to the yield year. Rain at this time might affect the ability to plant the plant cane. Another period of interest was August and

September of the current yield year. Rain at this time might affect the growth of both plant cane and stubble cane. A third period of interest was September, October, and November of the current yield year. Rain at this time might affect the efficiency of harvest of the crop. Class 2 contained several freeze-related variables. In some of these a threshold temperature of 5.6C was used. This value was selected because Legendre (2001) indicates that it is the temperature below which all above-ground parts of commercial sugarcane

NOVEMBER 2005

GREENLAND

1661

varieties are killed. Class 3 is composed of soil water balance variables relating to Climate Division 8 in south-central Louisiana and includes total surpluses, deficits, and precipitation totals for different periods of months. Class 4 is the regional-average monthly mean maximum and minimum temperature and total precipitation values for the six stations, specified in Table 2, composing the sugarcane area climate. Class 5 consists of total growing degree-days for different periods of months computed from the mean temperature values of the area climate data calculated from a base temperature of 16C. Class 6 is a binary value for the occurrence of autumn (fall) tropical storms and hurricanes.

TABLE 4. Values of variables that have significant differences greater than 90% in means for years of the upper and lower thirds of sugarcane yields. For meanings of variable symbols see Table 3. Upper-third mean 12 Lower-third mean Rain days 17 Significance level of difference (%) 99 95 99 99 99 90 90 90 95 90 95 95 90

Variable RDc SuJJA SuJS SuMS SuAS TxAug TxSep TxNov TxDec GDDMar PptJuly PptAug PptNov

Soil moisture surpluses (mm) 139 259 182 334 219 404 246 483 33.3 31.2 21.3 17.1 Temperatures (C) 32.6 30.6 22.5 18.7

c. Quantile analysis
Following the approach of Hu and Buyanovsky (2003), the sugarcane yield data were divided into three quantiles that contain the upper, lower, and middle third of the years as ranked by yield. In the case of almost all of the 74 climate variables there were intuitively reasonable differences between the mean values of the climate variables associated with the upper and lower third of the yield data years. A Students t test was applied to the variables to test whether the differences of the mean values of the yield and the climatic variables were statistically different. Before applying the Students t test, an exploratory data analysis (EDA) was conducted to see whether the data, particularly the dependent-variable data (yield), were normally distributed. The EDA indicated that the high-yield data point for 1999 in the data series would be considered to be a statistical outlier. So this data point and those of the climate variables for that year were omitted from the Students t test analysis, which was run as a one-tailed, type-2 analysis. The Students t test analysis indicated that 13 of the variables are statistically significant at or above the 90% level (Table 4). These data suggest that larger yield values are more likely to be achieved during years in which there are fewer days with greater than 6.4 mm of rain in August and September, when the soil water surplus is less throughout the growing season, and when the July and August precipitation values are much lower than average. Yields are more likely to be greater when the maximum temperature in August is higher than average. Higher yields are also found when there are a greater number of growing degree-days in March. The only three climatic variables in Table 4 for which there are no immediately obvious explanations are the maximum temperatures in November and December and the November precipitation. Further insights are gained when the composite (av-

Growing degree-days (C day) 77 62 142 115 140 Precipitation (mm) 183 164 102

erage) values of monthly maximum temperatures and total precipitation for the upper and lower third of the yield years are examined. It is clear from Fig. 3 that better sugarcane yields are achieved when the maximum temperatures are greater than average in the height of the growing season, especially in August, and also in winter, especially January and February. Monthly maximum temperatures between upper- and lower-third yield years are statistically different (at the 90% or greater level) for August, September, November, and December (Table 4). Yields are also increased in years in which the precipitation values in the spring

FIG. 3. Mean monthly maximum temperature during years with high and low sugarcane yields.

1662

JOURNAL OF APPLIED METEOROLOGY

VOLUME 44

FIG. 4. Mean monthly total precipitation during years with high and low sugarcane yields.

months of April and May and the main growing-season months of July, August, and September are lower than average (Fig. 4).

d. Simulation of annual yield values

A model was developed as a means to quantify further the relations between climatic factors and sugarcane yield and as a way of gaining understanding of the relationships. The model, which involves identifying CCVs and includes year-to-year variations of a sequence of within-growth-year climatic variables, is called a CCV model to distinguish it from a simple regression model and from a comprehensive, mechanistic, simulation crop model. The first step in the CCV model development was to identify the climatic variables that individually display the greatest correlation with yield values. This was achieved by constructing the correlation matrix for the variables in Table 3 using all years of data between 1963 and 2002 and focusing attention on the values of the correlation coefficients between the adjusted yield and the climatic variables. The top nine highest correlations in this analysis were February mean minimum temperature TiF (0.54), total soil water surplus between April and September SuAS (0.50), number of rain days in August and September of the current year RDc (0.40), total soil water surplus between May and September SuMS ( 0.39), July precipitation PptJuly (0.37), April precipitation PptAp (0.35), August precipitation PptAug (0.33), August mean maximum temperature TxAug (0.32), and growing degree-days in August GDDAug (0.32). The first of these is a freezerelated variable. The next six of these are growingseason moisture-related and intercorrelated variables. It was decided to use only one of these six variables

because of the intercorrelation. SuAS was included because of its highest correlation value with adjusted yield (AdjY). Similarly, TxAug was selected over GDDAug for inclusion in the simulation. The fall hurricane variable (FallHurr) did not score highly in the correlation analysis because of the binary method in which it was coded. This variable was also included in the model, however, because the St. Gabriel data indicate that hurricanes are an important factor. For example, as a result of Hurricane Andrew, the yield of CP 70-321 for 1992 was 12.3 t ha1, the least out of the 19 study years (Fig. 2). St. Gabriel sustained a direct hit by this hurricane. The next step was to decide the functions by which the values of the four variables SuAS, TiF, TxAug, and FallHurr are included in the model. The individual regression equations between AdjY and SuAS, TiF, and TxAug were used as these functions. Linear, curvilinear, and polynomial regressions were computed, and the linear regression functions, when inserted in the simulation model, simulated the yield data best. For years in which fall hurricanes occurred, the difference in mean AdjY between years with and without hurricanes, 2.8 t ha1, was subtracted from the estimated yield value. The CCV model takes an additive form starting, in any given year, with the yield value averaged over the complete data period of 19632002, then adding the influence of the SuAS, TiF, and TxAug variables, and last, if hurricanes occur, subtracting 2.8 t ha1. After summing all of the regression intercept values, the CCV model simplifies to AdjY (0.4902 TiFeb) (2.1088 TxAug) (0.0154 SuAS) 5.6158 FallHurr, where again AdjY (t ha1) is the yield in any given year, TiFeb (C) is the mean minimum temperature in February, TxAug (C) is the mean maximum temperature in August, SuAS (mm) is the total of the soil water surpluses in all of the months between April and September in Louisiana Climate Division 8, and FallHurr is 2.8 in years in which there is a hurricane between August and September and 0 if a hurricane does not occur within those months. The CCV model in this form simulates the adjusted yield value over the 19632002 period with a root-meansquare error (rmse) of 5.1 t ha1. The mean yield value over the study period was 60.4 t ha1, with values for the highest and lowest years being 73.1 and 50.6 t ha1, respectively, and the standard deviation was 5.9 t ha1. A comparison of the observed and modeled values is instructive (Fig. 5). First, as might be expected from a model constructed in the manner described, modeled values tend to keep within the range defined by the observed values, and so modeled values do not usually capture the degree of extreme values found in the observed data. Second, there are years in which the ob-

NOVEMBER 2005

GREENLAND

1663

FIG. 5. Observed and simulated sugarcane yield.

served values are well below the modeled values. These years may be ones in which, although the climate was favorable, there are one or more nonclimatic reasons why the yield did not reach its model climatic potential. The years 1964, 1965, 1966, 1978, 1979, and 1990 are examples of this possible situation. No information on nonclimatic yield-affecting conditions could be found relating to any of the years before 1990. Available Louisiana State University (LSU) Agricultural Center News Reports commence only in 1981, and St. Gabriel Research Station Annual Reports commence only in 1984. However, the results of the simulation suggest that the affect of Hurricanes Hilda in 1964 and Betsy in 1965 have been underestimated. In addition, the 1990 case most likely suggests that the simulation does not capture the extreme effect of the severe freeze in the winter of 1989/90. Third, the period from 1994 to 2002 in which modeled values, in all cases but one, very strongly underestimate the observed yield values (which have been adjusted for the better crop variety LCP 85-384) suggests that the actual observed yield data ought to have been adjusted downward even further to allow for the positive technological effect of combine harvesting.

5. Discussion
The above analyses quantitatively identify certain climatically critical variables that affect the yield of the sugarcane crop in Louisiana. Quantile analysis indicated that high sugarcane yield values are more likely to be achieved during years in which there are fewer days with greater than 6.4 mm of rain in August and September, when the soil water surplus is less throughout the growing season, and when the July and August precipitation values are much lower than average. Yields are also more likely to be

greater when the maximum temperature in August is greater than average. Higher temperatures tend to accompany periods of lower precipitation because of the lesser cloud cover and higher radiation values at these times. Higher yields are also found when there are a greater number of growing degree-days in March. Such a situation would help to stimulate early growth of both the plant cane and the stubble crop. Composite (average) values of monthly maximum temperatures and total precipitation for the upper and lower third of the yield years were examined. Higher sugarcane yields are achieved when the maximum temperatures are greater than average in the height of the growing season, especially in August, and also in winter, especially in January and February. The higher winter temperatures presumably decrease the chances of experiencing severe freezes. Yields are increased in years in which the precipitation values in the spring months of April and May and the main growing-season months of July, August, and September are lower than average. Higher-than-average winter and spring rainfall is particularly detrimental to the crop. Another way to view the CCV model simulation and composite analyses is that they quantitatively represent the importance of a sequence of weather that, other things being equal, will most likely lead to a highyielding sugarcane crop. The sequence would consist of a year with a mild February, a growing season of April through September in which the soil water surplus is lower than average, an August with a high mean maximum temperature, and a harvest season without the occurrence of a hurricane. This sequence confirms most of the perceptions of local sugarcane experts. Average conditions will provide adequate rain in MayJune. Overall, the quantitative analysis confirms and quantifies conventional wisdom. The importance of particular sequences of weather echoes the finding of Hu and Buyanovsky (2003) for corn yield in Missouri, namely, that climate effects on the yield can only be explained by within-season variations and not by average growing-season conditions. The analyses suggest that markedly lower than average precipitation and soil water conditions are beneficial to sugarcane yields. However, it must be remembered that even in most low rainfall years in the study area there are almost always sufficient rainfall and adequate soil water for plant growth. For example, Louisiana Climate Division 8 received 495 mm of rain between May and September during the driest year in the study period. Although the data indicate that yields are negatively affected by fall hurricanes, the impact is not as great as one might expect. In reality, following most hurricanes, some proportion of the cane can still be

1664

JOURNAL OF APPLIED METEOROLOGY

VOLUME 44

harvested. The problem is that more effort and cost is involved in such a harvest. It is likely that the higher cost of harvesting the crop, rather than the often only slightly lower yield, weighs most heavily on the mind of the producer. However, a better simulation might be achieved if data on the category of the hurricane, its landfall location, and its subsequent path were included. These findings provide some information for considering temporal changes in the critical climatic variables affecting the sugarcane crop. We may focus on the four variables that were taken into the simulation model. Over the period of study, 19632002, the linear trends for TiF and TxAug were respectively 0.091 and 0.002C yr1. There was no trend for SuAS. There similarly is no obvious trend in the frequency of fall hurricanes in the study area. The trend in TiF is statistically significant at above the 99% confidence level. The trend in TxAug is not statistically significant. The TiF trend might indicate a move toward conditions in which sugarcane-damaging freezes are becoming less frequent. However, this suggestion should be viewed with caution because, although there are small positive trends in the comparable data for mean minimum temperatures in December, January and March, none of these trends is statistically significant. Increasing temperature trends are generally consistent with temperature projections for the study area into the twenty-first century (Twilley et al. 2001; Southeast Regional Assessment Team 2002). Considering the trends in February mean minimum temperatures and August maximum temperatures and the lack of trend in soil water surplus between April and September and hurricane frequency between 1963 and 2002, and considering the projections that have been made for the current century, the future for sugarcane yield is very promising within the context of the climatic environment. Warmer winters are likely to lead to less damage to the crop from winter freezes and may even extend the range of the crop to the north. Warmer summers are likely to increase yields for this indeterminate plant. The possibility of increased summer rainfall might increase growing-season soil water surplus. The projected rainfall increase is not large, however, and it could be offset by greater evaporation rates related to the higher temperatures. In addition, it will be necessary to continue and maintain land drainage operations.

siana. A statistical analysis was performed using statewide annual yield data from 1963 to 2002 and a climate database. The fact that a climate signal exists was demonstrated by comparing mean values of the variables for the upper and lower third of yield values. Most of these climatic-variable mean values showed an intuitively plausible difference between the high- and lowyield years. The difference in means for 13 of the variables is statistically significant at or above the 90% level. A correlation matrix was used to identify the critical climatic variables that had the largest influence on annual yield. Four variablesmean minimum February temperature, mean maximum August temperature, soil water surplus between April and September, and occurrence of fall hurricaneswere built into a model to simulate adjusted yield values. The CCV model simulated the yield value with an rmse of 5.1 t ha1. The mean yield value over the study period was 60.4 t ha1, with values for the highest and lowest years being 73.1 and 50.6 t ha1, respectively, with a standard deviation of 5.9 t ha1. Presumably because of the almost constant high water table and soil water availability, high precipitation values tend to have a negative effect on the yields. The importance of particular sequences of weather agrees with, and quantifies, conventional wisdom in Louisiana. The importance of weather sequence also echoes the finding of Hu and Buyanovsky (2003) for corn yield in Missouri, namely, that climate effects on the yield can only be explained by within-season variations and not by average growingseason conditions. Past trends in the values of critical climatic variables and general projections of future climate suggest that, with respect to the climatic environment, as long as land drainage is continued and maintained, future levels of sugarcane yield will rise in Louisiana. Acknowledgments. Helpful comments were provided by two reviewers, by Mr. H. L. Waguespack of the American Sugar Cane League, by Dr. R. Bengtson, Dr. B. Legendre, Mr. Michael Hebert, and Mr. Harold Schexnayder of the Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, and by Dr. Elwynn Taylor of Iowa State University. Data and other support were provided by Dr. B. Keim of the Louisiana Office of State Climatology and the Southern Regional Climate Center.

APPENDIX Data Used and Model Results

Table A1 lists the data used and the model results for this study.

6. Conclusions
This paper sought to understand the role that climate variability plays on yield values of sugarcane in Loui-

NOVEMBER 2005

GREENLAND TABLE A1. Data used and model results.

1665

Year 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Original yield data (t ha1) 68.1 53.9 54.6 53.5 65.7 63.0 57.7 63.0 54.2 66.6 52.4 54.6 52.4 65.7 60.8 50.6 51.3 58.4 66.1 69.0 59.3 54.6 59.7 67.9 56.2 61.7 62.8 53.7 55.3 57.0 57.0 61.3 64.4 69.5 70.1 75.0 82.1 74.8 73.5 73.9

Adjusted yield data (t ha1) 68.1 53.9 54.6 53.5 65.7 63.0 57.7 63.0 54.2 66.6 52.4 54.6 52.4 65.7 60.8 50.6 51.3 58.4 66.1 69.0 59.3 54.6 59.7 67.9 56.2 61.7 62.8 53.7 55.3 57.0 57.0 61.1 64.0 67.8 66.3 68.9 73.1 64.7 62.6 62.0

Modeled yield (t ha1) 64.4 58.1 60.3 56.9 57.9 60.7 57.9 58.5 55.0 65.6 54.6 59.2 53.0 67.5 56.1 56.9 56.4 62.0 64.7 61.7 57.3 58.6 58.7 63.4 60.4 58.9 56.2 68.7 53.6 52.1 61.4 57.8 61.7 58.5 60.0 64.3 69.7 69.6 55.0 55.9

Mean Feb min temperature (C) 3.1 4.1 6.3 5.8 5.1 2.5 7.3 3.8 5.8 7.0 4.9 6.7 8.4 8.8 4.8 1.6 5.2 4.1 5.4 5.8 6.3 6.7 4.9 9.2 8.2 5.8 6.7 10.2 8.0 8.9 5.9 7.4 6.7 6.6 8.4 7.3 9.1 8.7 9.3 5.1

Mean Aug max temperature (C) 34.0 33.5 32.6 32.0 31.7 32.9 33.0 32.6 32.1 33.3 32.0 32.7 31.9 33.0 31.9 33.2 32.9 34.2 33.5 33.2 32.9 31.6 32.7 32.8 33.1 32.1 32.2 33.5 32.0 30.9 33.6 31.3 33.5 31.7 32.8 34.2 34.8 34.2 31.8 32.1

Soil water surplus* (mm) 212 399 199 507 376 284 443 414 464 160 632 295 835 51 510 540 650 424 191 359 629 373 274 309 508 390 614 87 789 591 441 405 244 382 500 190 162 69 710 382

Hurricane occurrence** 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

* Soil water surplus is the total soil water surplus in Louisiana between the months of Apr and Sep. ** Hurricane occurrence is coded as 1 if a hurricane occurred in Louisiana Climate Divisions 7, 8, or 9 between the months of Aug and Nov and 0 if no hurricane occurred.

REFERENCES Biswas, B. C., 1988: Agroclimatology of the sugar-cane crop. World Meteorological Organization Tech. Note 193, WMO-N 703, 90 pp. Boucherau, L., 1872: The Louisiana sugar report. Pelican Book and Job Printing Office, 74 pp. Cheeroo-Nayamuth, F. C., M. J. Robertson, M. K. Wegener, and A. R. H. Nayamuth, 2000: Using a simulation model to assess potential and attainable sugar cane yield in Mauritius. Field Crops Res., 66, 225243. Courreges, P., 2004: Grinding time means sugarcane trucks to fill area roads. Baton Rouge Advocate, 5 October, 1B2B.

Gangopadhyaya, M., and R. P. Sarker, 1964: A curvilinear study of the effect of weather on growth of sugarcane. Ind. J. Meteor. Geophys., 15, 215226. Gravois, K., 2001: Louisianas sugarcane industry. Louisiana Agriculture, Vol. 44, No. 4, 45. Hoy, J. W., 2001: Planting sugarcane: Whole stalks versus billets. Louisiana Agriculture, Vol. 44, No. 4, 79. Hu, Q., and G. Buyanovsky, 2003: Climate effects on corn yield in Missouri. J. Appl. Meteor., 42, 16261635. Kumar, R., 1984: Yield response of sugar cane to weather variation in northeast Andhra Pradesh. Arch. Meteor. Geophys. Bioklimatol., B-35, 265276.

1666

JOURNAL OF APPLIED METEOROLOGY

VOLUME 44

Legendre, B. L., 2001: Resistance of Louisiana sugarcane to deterioration from freezing temperatures. Louisiana Agriculture, Vol. 44, No. 4, 38. Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service, cited 2003: Louisiana summary: Agriculture and natural resources, 2003. Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center. [Available online at http://www2.lsuagcenter. com/AgSum2003/index.aspx.] Mjelde, J. W., and K. Keplinger, 1998: Using the Southern Oscillation to forecast Texas winter wheat and sorghum yields. J. Climate, 11, 5460. Morris, C., 2000: Impenetrable by easy. Transforming New Orleans and Its Environs: Centuries of Change, C. Colten, Ed., University of Pittsburgh Press, 2242. OLeary, G. J., 2000: A review of three sugarcane simulation models with respect to their prediction of sucrose yield. Field Crops Res., 68, 97111. Reagan, T. E., 2001: Integrated pest management in sugarcane. Louisiana Agriculture, Vol. 44, No. 4, 1618. Roth, D., cited 2004: Louisiana hurricanes. Lake Charles, Louisi-

ana, National Weather Service Forecast Office. [Available online at http://www.srh.noaa.gov/lch/research/lahur.htm.] Southeast Regional Assessment Team, 2002: Preparing for a changing climate: The potential consequences of climate variability and changeSoutheast. U.S. Global Change Program Rep., 111 pp. Subbaramayya, A. R., and R. Kumar, 1980: Cropweather relationship of sugar-cane and yield prediction in northeast Andhra Pradesh. Agric. Meteor., 21, 265279. Taylor, E., 2002: Drought risk in agriculture. Preprints, 13th Conf. on Applied Climatology, Portland, OR, Amer. Meteor. Soc., CD-ROM, 8.10. Taylor, S. E., 1996: Possible influence of global warming on climate variability in the central United States. Proc. 22d Conf. on Agricultural and Forest Meteorology with Symp. on Fire and Forest Meteorology, Atlanta, GA, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 350353. Twilley, R. R., and Coauthors, 2001: Confronting climate change in the Gulf Coast region: Prospects for sustaining our ecological heritage. Union of Concerned Scientists and Ecological Society of America Rep., 82 pp.