Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T01:59:44.480Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The prediction of crop biomass, grain yield and grain quality using fluorescence sensing in cereals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2017

J. Holland ,
D. Cammarano ,
G. Poile  and
M. Conyers
J. Holland*
Affiliation:
James Hutton Institute, Dundee, DD2 5DA, UK
D. Cammarano
Affiliation:
James Hutton Institute, Dundee, DD2 5DA, UK
G. Poile
Affiliation:
Wagga Wagga Agricultural Institute, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Wagga Wagga 2650, NSW, Australia
M. Conyers
Affiliation:
Wagga Wagga Agricultural Institute, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Wagga Wagga 2650, NSW, Australia
*
†jonathan.holland@hutton.ac.uk
Get access

Abstract

Potassium (K) is a macronutrient which plays a vital role on crop growth and metabolism. After N the requirements for K are greatest for most arable crops and so the availability of K is of critical importance to optimise production. The precision nutrient management of arable crops requires accurate and timely assessment of crop nutrient status. Much research and practice has focused on crop N status, while there has been a lack of focus on other important nutrients such as K. Therefore, in this study we assess the robustness of 12 fluorescence channels and several indices to predict nutrient status (K, Mg and Ca) across two cereal crops with different row management and lime status on an acidic K deficient soil. A multi-factorial experiment was used with the following treatment factors: crop (barley, wheat), K fertilizer rates (0, 25, 50, 100 kg K/ ha), lime (nil, 1 t/ ha) and two management factors (inter-row, windrow). At flowering the crop was sampled for biomass and nutrient content and proximal sensing (using a Multiplex fluorometer) undertaken of the crop canopy. Crop variables showed significant treatment effects. For instance, all crop variables were greater under the windrow treatment than the inter-row, K rate significantly increased grain yield and TGW, but K rate decreased protein and grain Ca and Mg content, also the grain yield was significantly greater under lime compared with the nil treatment. These crop effects enabled the identification of significant crop-fluorescence relationships. For instance, SFR_R (a chlorophyll index) predicted crop biomass (regardless of crop species) and FLAV predicted with the grain protein of windrow-grown barley. These results are promising and suggest crop-fluorescence relationships can be used to inform crop nutrient status which could be used to aid management decisions. Thus, there is good potential for fluorescence sensing to quantify crop K status and the opportunity to improve the timing and precision of K management for application within a precision agriculture system.

Keywords

potassiumyield responsefluorescence predictiongrain quality forecasting
Type
Crop Sensors and Sensing
Information
Advances in Animal Biosciences , Volume 8 , Special Issue 2: Papers presented at the 11th European Conference on Precision Agriculture (ECPA 2017), John McIntyre Centre, Edinburgh, UK, July 16–20 2017 , July 2017 , pp. 172 - 177
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agati, G, Foschi, L, Grossi, N, Guglielminetti, L, Cerovic, ZG and Volterrani, M 2013. Fluorescence-based versus reflectance proximal sensing of nitrogen content in Paspalum vaginatum and Zoysia matrella turfgrasses. European Journal of agronomy 45, 39–51.Google Scholar
Agati, G, Foschi, L, Grossi, N and Volterrani, M 2015. In field non-invasive sensing of the nitrogen status in hybrid bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon× C. transvaalensis Burtt Davy) by a fluorescence-based method. European Journal of Agronomy 63, 89–96.Google Scholar
Bell, MJ, Moody, PW, Harch, GR, Compton, B and Want, PS 2009. Fate of potassium fertilisers applied to clay soils under rainfed grain cropping in south-east Queensland, Australia. Australian Journal of Soil Research 47, 60–73.Google Scholar
Brennan, RF and Bell, MJ 2013. Soil potassium—crop response calibration relationships and criteria for field crops grown in Australia. Crop and Pasture Science 64 (5), 514–522.Google Scholar
Cammarano, D, Fitzgerald, GJ, Casa, R and Basso, B 2014. Assessing the robustness of vegetation indices to estimate wheat N in Mediterranean environments. Remote Sensing 6 (4), 2827–2844.Google Scholar
Consonni, V, Ballabio, D and Todeschini, R 2010. Evaluation of model predictive ability by external validation techniques. Journal of chemometrics 24 (3‐4), 194–201.Google Scholar
Ghozlen, NB, Cerovic, ZG, Germain, C, Toutain, S and Latouche, G 2010. Non-destructive optical monitoring of grape maturation by proximal sensing. Sensors 10 (11), 10040–10068.Google Scholar
Gilmour, AR, Gogel, BJ, Cullis, BR and Thompson, R 2009. ASReml user guide. VSNI http://www.vsni.co.uk Google Scholar
Gremigni, P, Wong, M, Edwards, N, Harris, D and Hamblin, J 2001. Potassium nutrition effects on seed alkaloid concentrations, yield and mineral content of lupins (Lupinus angustifolius). Plant and soil 234 (1), 131–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrell, F 2001. Regression modeling strategies: with applications to linear models, logistic and ordinal regression, and survival analysis. Springer, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
IUSS Working Group WRB 2014. World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2014, FAO, Rome.Google Scholar
Kenward, MG and Roger, JH 1997. The precision of fixed effects estimates from restricted maximum likelihood. Biometrics 53, 983–997.Google Scholar
Lobell, DB, Asner, GP, Ortiz-Monasterio, JI and Benning, TL 2003. Remote sensing of regional crop production in the Yaqui Valley, Mexico: estimates and uncertainties. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 94 (2), 205–220.Google Scholar
Perry, EM and Fitzgerald, GJ 2015. Reflectance and fluorescence measurements for wheat traits under elevated CO2, Australian Agronomy Conference, Hobart, Tas.Google Scholar
Peteinatos, GG, Korsaeth, A, Berge, TW and Gerhards, R 2016. Using Optical Sensors to Identify Water Deprivation, Nitrogen Shortage, Weed Presence and Fungal Infection in Wheat. Agriculture 6 (2), 24.Google Scholar
Scanlan, CA, Bell, RW and Brennan, RF 2015. Simulating wheat growth response to potassium availability under field conditions in sandy soils. II. Effect of subsurface potassium on grain yield response to potassium fertiliser. Field Crops Research 178, 125–134.Google Scholar
Tremblay, N, Wang, Z and Cerovic, ZG 2012. Sensing crop nitrogen status with fluorescence indicators. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 32 (2), 451–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, PJ and Greenwood, DJ 2013. Properties and management of cationic elements for crop growth. Soil Conditions and Plant Growth 160–194.Google Scholar
White, PJ and Karley, AJ 2010. Potassium. In: R Hell and R-R Mendel, (Eds.), Cell Biology of Metals and Nutrients. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg. pp. 199–224.Google Scholar
Williams, CH and Raupach, M 1983. Plant nutrients in Australian soils, Soils: an Australian viewpoint. CSIRO, Melbourne.Google Scholar
Yu, K, Leufen, G, Hunsche, M, Noga, G, Chen, X and Bareth, G 2013. Investigation of leaf diseases and estimation of chlorophyll concentration in seven barley varieties using fluorescence and hyperspectral indices. Remote Sensing 6 (1), 64–86.Google Scholar
Zarcinas, BA, Cartwright, B and Spouncer, LR 1987. Nitric acid digestion and multi-element analysis of plant material by inductively coupled plasma spectrometry. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 18 (1), 131–146.Google Scholar