Sugar Tech (Nov-Dec 2019) 21(6):1039–1044
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-019-00741-w
SHORT COMMUNICATION
Allometric Equations to Estimate Sugarcane Aboveground
Biomass
Eric Xavier de Carvalho1 • Rômulo Simões Cezar Menezes2 •
Everardo Valadares de Sá Barreto Sampaio2 • Djalma Elzébio Simões Neto3
José Nildo Tabosa1 • Luiz Rodrigues de Oliveira1 • Aluizio Low Simões2 •
Aldo Torres Sales2
Received: 5 December 2018 / Accepted: 25 May 2019 / Published online: 18 July 2019
Ó Society for Sugar Research & Promotion 2019
Abstract Sugarcane harvest implies in the movement of
very large amounts of biomass and, therefore, demands
careful planning of logistics. Accurate pre-harvest estima-
tion of sugarcane field productivity provides useful data to
plan harvest, transportation, selling and industrial pro-
cessing activities. Currently, the estimation of sugarcane
biomass in the field is based on destructive techniques. The
use of allometric equations is an adequate, nondestructive
tool to provide this information, but these equations are
scarcely available for sugarcane. We created regression
models to estimate stem fresh (SFB, kg) and total above-
ground dry biomass (AB, kg) based on plant height (H, cm)
and diameter (D, cm), for different Brazilian sugarcane
varieties. The models adequately estimated biomass for all
sugarcane varieties. Based on that, we developed two
general equations valid for all varieties:
SFB = 0.046 H 9 D1.5647 and AB = 0.4001 H 9 D1.0743.
To calculate biomass per hectare, SFB and AB must be
multiplied by the average number of stems in the row
(N) and divided by row spacing (S). In our study site, N was
adequately estimated counting stems in four 100-m row
segments. Overall, precise estimates of stem and whole
plant biomass for sugarcane can be obtained using the
& Eric Xavier de Carvalho
eric.carvalho@ipa.br
1
Agronomic Institute of Pernambuco (IPA), Av. General San
Martin, 1371, San Martin, Recife, Pernambuco State
50761-000, Brazil
2
Federal University of Permanbuco (UFPE), Av. Professor
Luiz Freire 1000, Cidade Universitária, Recife,
Permanbuco State 50740-545, Brazil
3 obtained from a certain field instead of relying only on the
Federal Rural University of Permanbuco, Ângela Cristina
Street S/N, Recife, Carpina Permanbuco State 55810-700,
Brazil
•
general equations and the number of stems per area. We
believe these equations are also useful to estimate biomass
for other sugarcane varieties around the world, considering
the simplicity of sugarcane plant structure.
Keywords Stem diameter  Plant height 
Number of stems  Cane weight  Dry biomass
Sugarcane (Saccharum oficinarum L.) is an important
renewable energy resource within the global energy matrix,
and its cultivated area has been increasing over the last
decades (Herrmann et al. 2018). Two main types of energy
products are obtained from sugarcane: alcohol which is
produced from the sucrose stocked in the stems (or stalks)
and electricity (thermic energy) produced by burning of the
bagasse residue left after the cane juice is extracted (Hof-
setz and Silva 2012; Defante et al. 2018). The leaves,
including the terminal meristem, can also be collected and
burned to generate electricity, but this is not a common
practice because it involves the extra costs of harvest and
transportation. Furthermore, the complete removal of
leaves from the fields could eventually deplete the soil
from organic matter and reduce soil fertility. However, the
use of part of the leaf biomass to generate electricity will
probably increase in Brazil in the next years (Chandel et al.
2012).
The estimation of sugarcane biomass before harvesting
could provide useful information to make better decisions
in the sugarcane production system. Sugarcane growers sell
their production to the mills based on stem weights, and it
would be an advantage to know beforehand the value
final weighing usually defined by the mill. Stem harvest
and transportation requirements and costs could be
123
1040
precisely planned. Besides that, estimating the proportion
of sugar and bagasse allows planning of the amount of
alcohol and electricity to be produced. Finally, knowing the
biomass of leaves would help to decide whether and how
much could be collected to generate electricity and how
much should remain in the field.
Although useful, this estimation is seldom done, and
when it occurs, it is usually based on the harvest and
weighing of a certain number of plants. The fact that this is
a destructive sampling is one of the reasons why it is not a
common practice. Weighing a small number of canes
results in imprecise values, and cutting a high number of
canes wastes the production. Moreover, under certain
conditions, cutting the plants is not possible or interferes
with other measurements. This is particularly the case of
research conducted in field plots, usually limited in size.
Therefore, a method to allow determination of the pro-
gressive increase in sugarcane biomass in field plots
without disturbing the plants is a valuable tool for research
scientists.
Allometric equations are the solution adopted in many
areas to estimate biomass in a nondestructive way. They
have been extensively used in forestry (Paul et al. 2013)
and crops such as coffee (Antunes et al. 2008), but are
scarce for grasses such as napiergrass, energy cane and
sugarcane (Youkhana et al. 2017). Interest in allometric
equations has increased in the last decades due to the
importance of carbon sequestration as a strategy to reduce
atmospheric CO2 concentrations and its implications to
mitigate climate changes. However, allometric equations to
estimate cane biomass are not commonly found in the lit-
erature (Youkhana et al. 2017) and certainly are not in use
in Brazil, one of the largest world producers of sugarcane.
Therefore, the objective of this work was to develop allo-
metric equations for some of the most planted sugarcane
varieties in the Northeastern region of Brazil, providing
growers with a simple formula to estimate the biomass of
the plant and its main components (stems and leaves).
Considering the relative simplicity of the cane structure,
we hypothesize that single equations can provide a reliable
estimate for sugarcane biomass of all varieties.
Sugarcane plants were counted and collected from
experimental fields in Itambé municipality, Pernambuco
state, Brazil (7°24’50’’S and 35°06’30’’W and 190 m
altitude). According to the Köppen–Geiger classification,
the climate in the experimental field is tropical and rainy
(hot and humid), with annual rainfall averaging 1200 mm,
mainly from March to June. Monthly rainfall during the
experimental period is shown in Fig. 1. The average annual
temperature is 24.8 °C, with a maximum of 30 °C and
minimum of 20 °C. The soils of the experimental area are
red and yellow dystrophic Argissols, and their chemical
and physical characteristics (Table 1) were determined
123
Sugar Tech (Nov-Dec 2019) 21(6):1039–1044
300
250
Precipitation (mm)
200
150
100
50
0
month/year
Fig. 1 Monthly rainfall during the experimental period in Itambé
municipality, Pernambuco state—Brazil
according to the methodology recommended by Embrapa
(1997).
Plants of five sugarcane varieties (RB863129, RB92579,
RB867515, RB962962 and RB931011) were cultivated
from July 2012 to October 2013. Planting occurred in drills
(25 to 35 cm deep), maintaining 18 buds per meter of row.
The fields were fertilized with 40 kg ha-1 of N,
120 kg ha-1 of P2O5 and 80 kg ha-1 of K2O.
After 180, 240, 300 and 360 days of planting and at
harvest (450 days), the number of individual stems (each
one considered as one plant) was counted in 10-m row
segments that were randomly distributed in the fields of
each variety. Sets of ten plants were cut at ground level
from fields of each variety, and each plant had measured
the height and diameter of its stem. The height was mea-
sured from ground level to the intersection of leaf number
one and the diameter measured in the intermediate portion
of the stem length. After measuring, each plant was sepa-
rated into stem and leaves, which included the top meris-
tem and leaves still unfolded. Each plant component was
weighed while fresh and again after oven-drying at 65 °C
during 72 h.
Two methods of sampling were also compared to
determinate the number of sugarcane plants per linear
meter: the first method consisted of counting the number in
a unique segment of 100-m rows, and the second method
consisted of counting the number of plants in ten segments
of 10-m rows. The methods were replicated four times. The
means were compared using Tukey test (P [ 0.01). The
number of plants is necessary to extrapolate the average
weight of each plant (kg) to the weight of all canes in a
field area (Kg ha-1).
Regression analyses were calculated using the dataset of
the fresh or dry biomass of each plant component and also
of their sum against height or diameter or the product of
these two variables. Linear and nonlinear allometric mod-
els were tested individually for each variety and also for all
of them. The best models were selected based on precision
and simplicity of the equation, considering the coefficient
of determination (R2), the mean error of the variance
(Syx%) and the relative error of the estimation (Er).
Sugar Tech (Nov-Dec 2019) 21(6):1039–1044 1041

Table 1 Chemical and physical characterization of the superficial (0–20 cm) soil layer where the experimental field was established in Itambé
municipality, Pernambuco state, Brazil
pH P N Ca Mg Na K (cmolc Al (cmolc H (cmolc S (cmolc CEC1 V2 M3 Ad4
(mg dm-3) (mg dm-3) (cmolc (cmolc (cmolc dm-3) dm-3) dm-3) dm-3) (cmolc (%) (%) (g cm-3)
dm-3) dm-3) dm-3) dm-3)

5.3 3 3.6 0.18 0.60 0.07 0.18 0.2 5.8 3.65 9.45 38.6 5.5 1.46
1
Cation exchange capacity
2
Base saturation
3
Aluminum saturation
4
Apparent density

Total aboveground or plant part biomass, fresh or dry,
can be calculated in an area base considering the average
number of plants in the rows, the spacing between rows and
the average plant weight using the formula:
 

100 BW
Biomass Mg ha1 ¼ 10 N   ð1Þ
S 1000
which can be simplified to:

BW
Biomass Mg ha1 ¼ N  ð2Þ
S
where N corresponds to the number of plants in ten seg-
ments of 10-m rows or 100 m of a continuous row; S cor-
responds to the spacing between rows in the field; and BW
is the average of the plant biomass weight (or of its parts)
obtained from the best allometric equation, divided by
1000 to convert from kg to Mg.
The accuracy of the biomass prediction equation for
stem production was tested under field conditions during
three sugarcane cycles (approximately 1 year each) for 14
varieties. Before harvesting, measurements were taken and
applied into the equation described in the methodology
above, and then, the fresh cane biomass was harvested,
transported and weighed in the sugar mill production units.
The results of the predicted and harvested biomass were
subject to analysis of variance, and the means of each year
were compared by the Tukey test (P \ 0.05).
The number of plants in 100 m of row did not differ
statistically between the sampling methods (P [ 0.01)
(Table 2). Overall, the coefficients of variation of ten
Table 2 Number of sugarcane plants per 100 m row according to the
sampling method
Sampling method Number of plants
Continuous (100 m row) 72a ± 3.61
10 segments of 10 m row 68a ± 4.49
Values are expressed as mean and ± standard deviation of the two
sampling methods. Means sharing a letter is not significantly different
(compared by Tukey test, P \ 0.01)
segments were around 10%, and the coefficients of varia-
tion of the averages of 100-m lines were even less. Con-
sidering the majority of cases, we determined that counting
the number of plants in four sets, each one comprising ten
consecutive segments and each segment 10 m long,
resulted in an estimate with less than 5% standard error of
the mean. Therefore, we recommend that producers and
researchers use this procedure to estimate the numbers of
cane stems in their fields. Since in some cases the variation
may be larger, more replications can be done until the error
of the estimate arrives in the intended range.
The stem height (H) and diameter of sugarcane plants
were used to develop linear regression equations for
aboveground biomass (fresh and dried) (Table 3). The
varieties did not differ from height, diameter and number
of plants when the comparisons were made with plants of
the same age (P [ 0.01). This was the first criteria to
decide to advance for a general equation to estimate sug-
arcane biomass production.
Table 4 shows the fittest regression for each compart-
ment for the sugarcane varieties studied. The large set of
equations generated for each specific sugarcane variety and
sampling period turns unviable their use in a large pro-
duction system with many varieties. Therefore, one uni-
versal equation was generated for all varieties studied and
sampling periods. With this larger dataset, which includes
larger ranges of stem height and diameter, in general, the
best equations were those based on the potential model and
using HD as an independent variable (Biomass = aHDb).
These equations had coefficients of determination above
0.86 (all with P \ 0.01), the lowest coefficients being those
for dry leaf biomasses (Table 4). Values of the parameters
a and b varied for the different varieties (Table 4) but in
such a way that one partially compensated the other and the
curves of all varieties for one type of biomass were rela-
tively similar and could be represented by a single general
equation.
Particularly interesting are the general equations for
fresh stem biomass and total aboveground dry biomass
(Table 4). The first one represents the common sellable

123
1042 Sugar Tech (Nov-Dec 2019) 21(6):1039–1044

Table 3 Height and diameter of individual stems and number of sugarcane stems in 10-m row segments along the growth cycle in five different
sugarcane varieties
Age (days after planting)
180 240 300 360 450

Height (cm)
RB863129 41.3 74.6 140.5 206.2 254.2
RB92579 50.4 80.7 144.5 216.2 260.3
RB867515 43.9 70.5 140.9 216.7 267.7
RB931011 48.5 75.2 141.6 208.6 255.0
RB962962 51.0 81.7 149.9 227.8 273.7
Diameter (cm)
RB863129 2.08 2.56 2.50 2.40 2.49
RB92579 1.81 2.37 2.53 2.55 2.58
RB867515 1.77 2.22 2.35 2.34 2.39
RB931011 1.87 2.26 2.36 2.32 2.42
RB962962 1.94 2.29 2.30 2.23 2.38
Number of stems
RB863129 58 55 65 63 71
RB92579 70 59 68 66 69
RB867515 83 69 74 80 81
RB931011 75 66 71 66 71
RB962962 56 50 61 65 68
a
Means without letter are not significantly different (compared by Tukey test, P \ 0.01)

Table 4 Allometric equations to estimate aboveground and leaf dry biomass, and stem fresh biomass (kg) of different sugarcane varieties or all
of them combined (general), based on plant height (H, cm) and stem diameter (D, cm)
Variety Equation R2 Er Syx%

Total aboveground dry biomass

RB863129 Y = 0.265 9 H 9 D1.1449 0.90 18.87 2.71
RB92579 Y = 0.3665 9 H 9 D1.0387 0.94 17.32 2.51
RB867515 Y = 0.6034 9 H 9 D1.01 0.91 20.51 2.70
1.1172
RB931011 Y = 0.3188 9 H 9 D 0.90 17.67 2.79
RB962962 Y = 0.4381 9 H 9 D1.0484 0.86 24.68 3.09
General Y = 0.4001 9 H 9 D1.0743 0.97 20.39 61.68
Fresh stem biomass
RB863129 Y = 0.083 9 H 9 D1.492 0.87 19.10 5.93
1.5648
RB92579 Y = 0.0444 9 H 9 D 0.98 11.47 3.97
RB867515 Y = 0.132 9 H 9 D1.3907 0.90 22.71 5.02
RB931011 Y = 0.0425 9 H 9 D1.5776 0.94 14.69 5.75
RB962962 Y = 0.0575 9 H 9 D1.5313 0.98 12.34 4.64
General Y = 0.046 9 H 9 D1.5647 0.97 14.20 110.65
Dry leaf biomass
General Y = 0.1775 H 9 D ? 21.359 0.78 19.48 0.37
2
R = regression coefficient of determination; Er = relative error of estimate; and Syx% = standard error of variance

part of sugarcane, which is the main component of the refractometer (Fujiwara et al. 2012). Stems are frequently
price paid for a field lot, usually including also sugar the only plant part that is harvested in the fields and
content, which can be easily determined using a simple transported to the mill. Therefore, precise estimates of stem

123
Sugar Tech (Nov-Dec 2019) 21(6):1039–1044
weigh allow planning the labor and equipment necessary
for these processes. Considering our measurements plus
those reported in the literature (Cerqueira et al. 2007;
Hofsetz and Silva 2012), we can estimate that 20–30% of
this biomass is bagasse which is now burned by almost all
Brazilian mills to generate electricity (Pandey et al. 2000;
Cardona et al. 2010; Hofsetz and Silva 2012; Bezerra and
Ragauskas 2016).
The dry aboveground biomass was not a major concern
of producers until a few years ago, particularly because
most of the non-stem biomass was burned prior to har-
vesting (Pandey et al. 2000; Cardona et al. 2010) and
sometimes also after harvest, by a second burning of the
residues (Sexton et al. 2017). Harvest without burning is
becoming a federal environmental norm in Brazil (Chandel
et al. 2012; Dias et al. 2015) and other countries, like
Australia (Sexton et al. 2017), but not in some other
countries, like South Africa (Galdos et al. 2009). There-
fore, interest in the biomass of leaves and terminal meris-
tems is increasing worldwide (Bezerra and Ragauskas
2016). This interest derives from the contribution this
biomass may have on C sequestration balances and mod-
eling (Solomon et al. 2007; Macedo et al. 2008), its role in
soil organic matter formation and the possibility of using
this biomass to generate electricity employing the same
facilities used to generate electricity from bagasse (Dias
et al. 2015). Therefore, it is becoming important to calcu-
late how much biomass remains in the fields after stem
harvest (Bezerra and Ragauskas 2016).
Sugarcane varieties have similar morphology and a
simple plant structure. Therefore, equations that take into
consideration stem diameter and height have the potential
to provide accurate estimates of plant biomass. We provide
one set of these equations, valid for varieties planted in
Northeast Brazil. It is likely that they would also be valid in
other regions of the world. The stem biomass values pre-
dicted by our equation were similar, with no significant
Predicted
80 Harvested
70 a https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2018.06.005.
60
50
Mg ha-1
40
30
20
10
0 optical fiber sensor on the determination of sucrose and ethanol
1 2 3 concentrations in process streams and effluents of sugarcane
Growth cycle
Fig. 2 Predict and harvested average biomass of 14 sugarcane
cultivars cultivated during three consecutive growth cycle in
Pernambuco state—northeast Brazil
1043
differences, to those harvested in the field in three growth
cycles (Fig. 2). Such results confirm the efficacy of the
regression model to predict sugarcane biomass production.
Therefore, it is possible to estimate sugarcane stem and leaf
biomass, separately and together, using allometric equation
models. These equations represent a new tool for the
practical and nondestructive evaluation of biomass accu-
mulated under field conditions along the sugarcane life
cycle and especially at harvest.
Acknowledgements The authors of this paper thank CNPq, Capes
and Facepe for the scholarships to students and research scientists and
also for financial support through the following research grants:
‘‘Consolidation of the Research Center on Water and Carbon
Dynamics in Ecosystems in the State of Pernambuco’’ (Edital 08/2014
Facepe Pronem, APQ-0532-5.01/14); and also for the project ‘‘Data
generation and modeling to support policies for adaptation to climatic
variability in agricultural systems in the Northeast region’’ (CNPq
Edital 37/2013–Climatic Changes, Proc. 403129/2013-3).
References
Antunes, W.C., M.F. Pompelli, D.M. Carretero, and F.M. DaMatta.
2008. Allometric models for non-destructive leaf area estimation
in coffee (Coffea arabica and Coffea canephora). Annals of
Applied Biology 153(1): 33–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-
7348.2008.00235.x.
Bezerra, T.L., and A.J. Ragauskas. 2016. A review of sugarcane
bagasse for second-generation bioethanol and biopower produc-
tion. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining 10(5): 634–647.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1662.
Cardona, C.A., J.A. Quintero, and I.C. Paz. 2010. Production of
bioethanol from sugarcane bagasse: status and perspectives.
Bioresource Technology 101(13): 4754–4766. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.biortech.2009.10.097.
Cerqueira, D.A., G. Rodrigues Filho, and C.S. Meireles. 2007.
Optimization of sugarcane bagasse cellulose acetylation. Car-
bohydrate Polymers 69(3): 579–582. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.carbpol.2007.01.010.
Chandel, A.K., S.S. Silva, W. Carvalho, and O.V. Singh. 2012.
Sugarcane bagasse and leaves: foreseeable biomass of biofuel
and bio-products. Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotech-
nology 87: 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.2742.
Defante, L.R., F.V. Olivier, and L. Sauer. 2018. Rapid expansion of
sugarcane crop for biofuels and influence on food production in
the first producing region of Brazil. Food Policy 79: 121–131.
Dias, M.O.S., R. Maciel Filho, P.E. Mantelatto, O. Cavalett, C.E.V.
Roussel, A. Bonomi, and M.R.L.V. Leal. 2015. Sugarcane
processing for ethanol and sugar in Brazil. Environmental
Development 15: 35–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2015.
03.004.
EMBRAPA. 1997. Manual de Métodos de Análise de Solo. Rio de
Janeiro: EMBRAPA-CNPS.
Fujiwara, E., E. Ono, and C.K. Suzuki. 2012. Application of an
bioethanol industry. IEEE Sensors Journal 12(9): 2839–2843.
https://doi.org/10.1109/JSEN.2012.2204246.
Galdos, M.V., C.C. Cerri, and C.E.P. Cerri. 2009. Soil carbon stocks
under burned and unburned sugarcane in Brazil. Geoderma 153:
347–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2009.08.025.
123
1044
Herrmann, R., C. Jumbe, M. Bruentrup, and E. Osabuohien. 2018.
Competition between biofuel feedstock and food production:
Empirical evidence from sugarcane outgrower settings in
Malawi. Biomass and Bioenergy 114: 100–111. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.biombioe.2017.09.002.
Hofsetz, K., and M.A. Silva. 2012. Brazilian sugarcane bagasse:
Energy and non-energy consumption. Biomass and Bioenergy
46: 564–573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.06.038.
Macedo, I.C., J.E.A. Seabra, and J.E.A.R. Silva. 2008. Greenhouse
gases emissions in the production and use of ethanol from
sugarcane in Brazil: The 2005/2006 averages and a prediction
for 2020. Biomass and Bioenergy 32(7): 582–595. https://doi.
org/10.1016/J.BIOMBIOE.2007.12.006.
Pandey, A., C.R. Soccol, P. Nigam, and V.T. Soccol. 2000.
Biotechnological potential of agro-industrial residues. I: Sugar-
cane bagasse. Bioresource Technology 74(1): 69–80. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0960-8524(99)00142-X.
Paul, K.I., S.H. Roxburgh, J.R. England, P. Ritson, T. Hobbs, K.
Brooksbank, and R.J. Raison. 2013. Development and testing of
allometric equations for estimating above-ground biomass of
mixed-species environmental plantings. Forest Ecology and
123
Sugar Tech (Nov-Dec 2019) 21(6):1039–1044
Management 310(15): 483–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.foreco.
2013.08.054.
Sexton, J., Y.L. Everingham, and G. Inman-Bamber. 2017. A global
sensitivity analysis of cultivar trait parameters in a sugarcane
growth model for contrasting production environments in
Queensland, Australia. European Journal of Agronomy 88:
96–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EJA.2015.11.009.
Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt,
M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller. 2007. Climate change 2007 - The
physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Youkhana, A.H., R.M. Ogoshi, J.R. Kiniry, M.N. Meki, M.H.
Nakahata, and S.E. Crow. 2017. Allometric models for predict-
ing aboveground biomass and carbon stock of tropical perennial
C4 grasses in Hawaii. Frontiers in Plant Science 8: 650–659.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.00650.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.