## 3 Results
### Satellite Retrieval and Crop Growth Model Sensitivity Analysis
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**RMSE**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Best-Fit Coefficients**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Lower Bound**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Upper Bound**} \\  & & & & & & & & & & & & & & Confidence Interval & \\ \hline
**Site** & **LAI** & **LUE** & **N** & **a** & **b** & **c** & **d** & **a** & **b** & **c** & **d** & **a** & **b** & **c** & **d** \\ \hline DE-Kli & 0.85 & 0.20 & 4 & 9.52 & \(-\)1.24 & 1.67 & \(-\)0.16 & 9.29 & \(-\)1.36 & 1.57 & \(-\)0.20 & 9.85 & \(-\)1.11 & 1.75 & \(-\)0.13 \\ FR-Gri & 2.83 & 0.18 & 1 & 9.52 & \(-\)1.24 & 1.67 & \(-\)0.16 & 9.28 & \(-\)1.36 & 1.58 & \(-\)0.20 & 9.88 & \(-\)1.09 & 1.76 & \(-\)0.14 \\ FR-Lam & 1.11 & 0.20 & 16 & 9.64 & \(-\)1.25 & 1.68 & \(-\)0.17 & 9.40 & \(-\)1.38 & 1.61 & \(-\)0.21 & 9.96 & \(-\)1.15 & 1.77 & \(-\)0.15 \\ IT-Bci & 1.41 & 0.18 & 32 & 9.50 & \(-\)1.27 & 1.69 & \(-\)0.17 & 9.28 & \(-\)1.39 & 1.62 & \(-\)0.22 & 9.83 & \(-\)1.15 & 1.80 & \(-\)0.15 \\ US-Arm & 0.14 & 0.23 & 1 & 9.52 & \(-\)1.24 & 1.66 & \(-\)0.16 & 9.24 & \(-\)1.36 & 1.57 & \(-\)0.19 & 9.87 & \(-\)1.03 & 1.74 & \(-\)0.13 \\ US-Bi & 1.63 & 0.26 & 12 & 9.52 & \(-\)1.25 & 1.66 & \(-\)0.16 & 9.35 & \(-\)1.40 & 1.57 & \(-\)0.20 & 9.90 & \(-\)1.17 & 1.74 & \(-\)0.13 \\ US-Ne & 0.83 & 0.16 & 124 & 8.84 & \(-\)0.80 & 1.44 & \(-\)0.09 & 5.08 & \(-\)0.96 & 1.11 & \(-\)0.18 & 9.62 & 1.36 & 1.68 & 0.07 \\ US-Ro & 1.16 & 0.13 & 27 & 9.59 & \(-\)1.20 & 1.65 & \(-\)0.16 & 9.25 & \(-\)1.37 & 1.51 & \(-\)0.18 & 9.93 & \(-\)1.03 & 1.71 & \(-\)0.10 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Leave-one-site-out FLUX LANDSAT regression retrieval performance using Equations (4) and (5). a, b, c, and d are the leave-one-site-out regression coefficients defined in Equations (4) and (5). Figure 4: RMSE of modeled LAI with respect to ground-truth LAI while varying planting date, seed GDD to maturity, and planting density. Leftmost column represents offset from actual seed GDD to maturity in \({}^{\circ}\)C in simulation variant, while second leftmost column represents offset from actual planting density in plants/m\({}^{2}\) in simulation variant. Header represents offset from actual planting day in days in simulation variant. Color bar at right and color in main panel represents LAI RMSE for each simulation variant determined by column and header. N = 146. Figure 5: RMSE of modeled LAI with respect to MODIS-retrieved LAI while varying planting date, seed GDD to maturity, and planting density, and MODIS EVI2/LAI regression coefficients. Leftmost column represents offset from actual seed GDD to maturity in °C in simulation variant, while second leftmost column represents offset from actual planting density in plants/m2 in simulation variant. Topmost header represents offset from actual planting day in days in simulation variant. Second topmost header represents slope of EVI2/LAI regression coefficients. Third topmost header represents intercept of EVI2/LAI regression coefficients. Color bar at right and color in main panel represents LAI RMSE for each simulation variant determined by column and header. N = 3280. Evaluation of Uncertainty of LAI and LUE\({}_{\text{Canopy}}\) Retrievals Due to Site and Growth Stage Specific Factors with Temporal Analysis  
We now present the results analyzing the uncertainty of LAI and LUE\({}_{\text{Canopy}}\) retrievals due to site and growth stage specific factors with temporal analysis. First, in Figure 6, we show scatterplots of retrieved versus HM modeled \(\Delta\)LAI at three values of \(\Delta\) (Figure 6a-c, \(\Delta\) = 3, 6, 9) and compare them to the retrieval performance of HM modeled LAI itself (Figure 6d). The leave-one-out regression values from Table 3 for Mead are used to perform the retrievals. The results in Figure 6 show a rising level of performance with increasing \(\Delta\) values, ranging from an R\({}^{2}\) of 0.41 for \(\Delta\) = 3 to an R\({}^{2}\) of 0.72 at \(\Delta\) = 9. The retrieval of modeled LAI itself is seen to have an R\({}^{2}\) of 0.85 in Figure 6d.