A simulation of variable rate nitrogen application in winter wheat with soil and sensor information - An economic feasibility study

Abstract CONTEXT Variable rate nitrogen (N) management strategies are often based on information about soil texture or information from canopy sensors, mounted on ground-based vehicles or satellites. However, disentangling the effect of each information type on N management strategy with experimental studies is often difficult, as results are only valid for the specific experimental conditions as well as the weather conditions for specific years. An alternative to this is to use deterministic crop growth models to generate a wider range of weather x treatment combinations. OBJECTIVE This study examines if ‘static’ soil profile information or ‘dynamic’ canopy sensor type information provide a better basis for decision making concerning N-application at the subfield level. METHODS The DAISY model was used to simulate crop growth in a five-year crop rotation on six soil profiles found in a heterogeneous sandy loam field. A range of management descriptions and simulations were made using 5 × 500 years of synthetic weather data with each crop in a five-year rotation set at the first year of the five parallel simulations. Simulated growth variables were used as proxies for a ‘dynamic’ canopy sensor information system. The differential gross margin was then calculated for a range of price relations between fertilizer (model input) and wheat yield (model output), including wheat price adjustments according to protein content. From regressions and backward induction analysis, the N application that maximizes the expected grain revenue minus fertilizer expenditure was estimated for four information cases; Case 1) Uniform application, assuming no prior information, Case 2) application based on soil type information, Case 3) application based on canopy sensor information and Case 4) application based on combined soil and canopy sensor information. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Findings from this study indicated that decisions with soil information alone provide an annual differential gross margin of variable rate application (without considering cost of information and technology) between 3.88 and 13.30 € ha−1 across price and soil variation. This margin approximately doubled with applications based on canopy sensor information and further doubled again with applications based on both soil and canopy sensor information. SIGNIFICANCE Thus, knowledge of the soil has the potential to improve interpretation of sensor signals for fertilization planning. The results may guide developers to decide on what type of information should be included in their decision support systems.

[1]  M. Ye,et al.  Global sensitivity analysis for identifying important parameters of nitrogen nitrification and denitrification under model uncertainty and scenario uncertainty , 2018, Journal of Hydrology.

[2]  R. Jørgensen,et al.  Uniformity of wheat yield and quality using sensor assisted application of nitrogen , 2007, Precision Agriculture.

[3]  J. Schjoerring,et al.  Reflectance measurement of canopy biomass and nitrogen status in wheat crops using normalized difference vegetation indices and partial least squares regression , 2003 .

[4]  M. Bindi,et al.  Uncertainties in simulating N uptake, net N mineralization, soil mineral N and N leaching in European crop rotations using process-based models , 2020 .

[5]  J. Olesen,et al.  Effects of winter wheat N status on assimilate and N partitioning in the mechanistic agroecosystem model DAISY , 2020 .

[6]  A. F. Colaço,et al.  Do crop sensors promote improved nitrogen management in grain crops , 2018 .

[7]  J. Olesen,et al.  Field scale agronomic and environmental consequences of overlapping N fertilizer application by disc spreaders , 2020 .

[8]  R. Poulsen,et al.  Management model for decision support when applying low quality water in irrigation , 2010 .

[9]  L. A. Richards Capillary conduction of liquids through porous mediums , 1931 .

[10]  L. Elsgaard,et al.  Root and soil carbon distribution at shoulderslope and footslope positions of temperate toposequences cropped to winter wheat , 2014 .

[11]  Zhenjiang Zhou,et al.  A RVI/LAI-reference curve to detect N stress and guide N fertigation using combined information from spectral reflectance and leaf area measurements in potato , 2017 .

[12]  Bruno Basso,et al.  Environmental and economic benefits of variable rate nitrogen fertilization in a nitrate vulnerable zone. , 2016, The Science of the total environment.

[13]  J. Neumann,et al.  Theory of games and economic behavior , 1945, 100 Years of Math Milestones.

[14]  Jakob Magid,et al.  Calibration and validation of the soil organic matter dynamics of the Daisy model with data from the Askov long-term experiments , 2003 .

[15]  Timothy A. Quine,et al.  THE RELATIVE CONTRIBUTION OF SOIL TILLAGE AND OVERLAND FLOW EROSION TO SOIL REDISTRIBUTION ON AGRICULTURAL LAND , 1996 .

[16]  Changwei Tan,et al.  Quantitative monitoring of leaf area index in wheat of different plant types by integrating NDVI and Beer-Lambert law , 2020, Scientific Reports.

[17]  Justin R. Adams,et al.  Precision conservation meets precision agriculture: A case study from southern Ontario , 2018, Agricultural Systems.

[18]  P. Abrahamsen,et al.  A Physically Based Model for Preferential Water Flow and Solute Transport in Drained Agricultural Fields , 2021, Water Resources Research.

[19]  S. Hansen,et al.  Model analysis of the significant drop in protein content in Danish grain crops from 1990-2015 , 2020 .

[20]  Gerard Govers,et al.  Tillage erosion and its effect on soil properties and crop yield in Denmark. , 2005, Journal of environmental quality.

[21]  S. Hansen,et al.  Climate change impacts on agro-climatic indices derived from downscaled weather generator scenarios for eastern Denmark , 2018, European Journal of Agronomy.

[22]  S. Fountas,et al.  A model of decision-making and information flows for information-intensive agriculture , 2006 .

[23]  Kenneth A. Sudduth,et al.  Sensor‐Based Nitrogen Applications Out‐Performed Producer‐Chosen Rates for Corn in On‐Farm Demonstrations , 2011 .

[24]  A. Ibrom,et al.  Remote sensing based evapotranspiration and runoff modeling of agricultural, forest and urban flux sites in Denmark: from field to macro-scale. , 2009 .

[25]  Alfons Weersink,et al.  Do farmers waste fertilizer? A comparison of ex post optimal nitrogen rates and ex ante recommendations by model, site and year , 2008 .

[26]  R. Rawnsley,et al.  Fertiliser strategies for improving nitrogen use efficiency in grazed dairy pastures , 2018, Agricultural Systems.

[27]  Francis M. Epplin,et al.  Maximum benefit of a precise nitrogen application system for wheat , 2006, Precision Agriculture.

[28]  A. Thomsen,et al.  Algorithms for sensor-based redistribution of nitrogen fertilizer in winter wheat , 2006, Precision Agriculture.

[29]  Johanna Link,et al.  Evaluating the economic and environmental impact of environmental compensation payment policy under uniform and variable-rate nitrogen management , 2006 .

[30]  Hao Liang,et al.  Global sensitivity and uncertainty analysis of the dynamic simulation of crop N uptake by using various N dilution curve approaches , 2020 .

[31]  Søren Hansen,et al.  Simulation of crop production, water and nitrogen balances in two German agro-ecosystems using the DAISY model , 1995 .

[32]  Peter R. Tozer,et al.  Uncertainty and investment in precision agriculture - Is it worth the money? , 2009 .

[33]  Søren Hansen,et al.  Daisy: an open soil-crop-atmosphere system model , 2000, Environ. Model. Softw..

[34]  Andreas Meyer-Aurich,et al.  Optimal site-specific fertilization and harvesting strategies with respect to crop yield and quality response to nitrogen , 2010 .

[35]  Abdul Mounem Mouazen,et al.  Delineation of Soil Management Zones for Variable-Rate Fertilization: A Review , 2017 .

[36]  M. Parlange,et al.  Open Science: Open Data, Open Models, …and Open Publications? , 2021, Water Resources Research.

[37]  Bert Beck,et al.  Smart Farming Technologies – Description, Taxonomy and Economic Impact , 2017 .

[38]  Spyros Fountas,et al.  Economic, environmental and social impacts , 2020 .

[39]  M. Trnka,et al.  Simulation of winter wheat yield and its variability in different climates of Europe: A comparison of eight crop growth models , 2011 .

[40]  J. Lindblom,et al.  Considering farmers' situated knowledge of using agricultural decision support systems (AgriDSS) to Foster farming practices: The case of CropSAT , 2018 .

[41]  Charlotte Bay Hasager,et al.  Incorporating remote sensing data in physically based distributed agro-hydrological modelling , 2004 .

[42]  James W. Jones,et al.  Spatial validation of crop models for precision agriculture , 2001 .

[43]  S. Hansen,et al.  Simulation of nitrogen dynamics and biomass production in winter wheat using the Danish simulation model DAISY , 1991, Fertilizer research.

[44]  Søren Hansen,et al.  Daisy: Model Use, Calibration, and Validation , 2012 .

[45]  Glen C. Rains,et al.  Redirecting technology to support sustainable farm management practices , 2011 .

[46]  Jose A. Jiménez-Berni,et al.  Water modelling approaches and opportunities to simulate spatial water variations at crop field level , 2020, Agricultural Water Management.