Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T06:02:22.143Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of uncertainty on the optimum nitrogen fertilization rate and agronomic, ecological and economic factors in an oilseed rape based crop rotation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 June 2007

J. HENKE ,
G. BREUSTEDT ,
K. SIELING  and
H. KAGE
J. HENKE*
Affiliation:
Institute of Crop Science and Plant Breeding, Christian-Albrechts-University, Hermann-Rodewald-Str. 9, D-24118Kiel, Germany
G. BREUSTEDT
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Christian-Albrechts-University, Olshausenstr. 40, D-24118Kiel, Germany
K. SIELING
Affiliation:
Institute of Crop Science and Plant Breeding, Christian-Albrechts-University, Hermann-Rodewald-Str. 9, D-24118Kiel, Germany
H. KAGE
Affiliation:
Institute of Crop Science and Plant Breeding, Christian-Albrechts-University, Hermann-Rodewald-Str. 9, D-24118Kiel, Germany
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: henke@pflanzenbau.uni-kiel.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Crop yield and optimum nitrogen fertilization rates (Nopt) are often calculated ex post by specific functions of the nitrogen fertilization rate, but in doing this, uncertainties in terms of model choice, annual nitrogen response variations and parameter estimation are neglected. In the present study, Nopt, grain yields, net revenues and N balances were estimated for the three crops of an oilseed rape (OSR)–winter wheat–winter barley rotation. The effects of uncertainties were considered using three different statistical models, estimating an identical Nopt over the years and carrying out Monte-Carlo simulations where model parameters were varied according to their estimated standard errors. The statistical models used were the quadratic (Q) polynomial function, the linear response and plateau (LRP) function and the quadratic response and plateau (QRP) function.

The Q model tended to estimate the highest Nopt values for the three crops, followed by the QRP and the LRP model in an initial ex post analysis. The highest corresponding mean net revenues in the rotation were estimated by the LRP model, followed by the Q and QRP model; mean N balances increased in the order LRP, QRP and Q. In the comparison of the crops, OSR showed the highest N balances followed by wheat and barley. Considering the protein concentration in wheat, Nopt values estimated by the Q model were considerably higher than without the economic effects of grain quality.

In order to consider uncertainties in annual nitrogen response, an ex ante Nopt over the years was determined by maximizing the cumulated net revenues over all years in the rotation. Ex ante Nopt was higher as the mean of the ex post Nopt values for the QRP and LRP model. Average grain yields and net revenues were lower, N balances were higher. Running the Monte-Carlo simulations, ex post Nopt was obtained by 10 000 generated functions in each year and ex ante Nopt by 50 000 generated functions of years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2002. This led to an increase in Nopt especially for the LRP model, while effects on the estimation of Nopt by the Q model were rather small. For the LRP model, corresponding mean net revenue decreased and mean N balance rose. In contrast, due to marginal changes in Nopt, the consideration of uncertainties in the estimations had only a small effect on net revenue and N balance in the Q model.

In general, all kinds of uncertainty tended to increase Nopt but this effect was much higher for the LRP model as compared to the Q model. This increase in Nopt was associated with decreasing net revenues and increasing N balances. Exceptionally in OSR using the Q model, however, the ex ante approaches considering uncertainty led to slightly lower Nopt values compared to the ex post value.

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 145 , Issue 5 , October 2007 , pp. 455 - 468
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

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

REFERENCES

Babcock, B. A. (1992). The effects of uncertainty on optimal nitrogen applications. Review of Agricultural Economics 14, 271–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baeumer, K. (1994). Düngung. In Integrierter Landbau (Eds Dierks, R. & Heitefuss, R.), pp. 88–110. Munich, Germany: BLV Verlagsgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Baker, D. A., Young, D. L., Huggins, D. R. & Pan, W. L. (2004). Economically optimal nitrogen fertilization for yield and protein in hard red spring wheat. Agronomy Journal 96, 116–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bélanger, G., Walsh, J. R., Richards, J. E., Milburn, P. H. & Ziadi, N. (2000). Comparison of three statistical models describing potato yield response to nitrogen fertilizer. Agronomy Journal 92, 902–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, B. R. & Sikora, F. J. (1990). Modified-quadratic/plateau model for describing plant responses to fertilizer. Soil Science Society of America Journal 54, 1784–1789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bullock, D. G. & Bullock, D. S. (1994). Quadratic and quadratic-plus-plateau models for predicting optimal nitrogen rate of corn: a comparison. Agronomy Journal 86, 191–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cerrato, M. E. & Blackmer, A. M. (1990). Comparison of models for describing corn yield response to nitrogen fertilizer. Agronomy Journal 82, 138–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colwell, J. D. (1994). Estimating Fertilizer Requirements. A Quantitative Approach. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.Google Scholar
De Wit, C. T. (1992). Resource use efficiency in agriculture. Agricultural Systems 40, 125–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, W. H. (2003). Econometric Analyses, 5th edn. New Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall International Edition.Google Scholar
Kuhlmann, F. (1992). Zum 50. Todestag von Friedrich Aereboe: Einige Gedanken zu seiner Intensitätslehre. Agrarwirtschaft 41, 222–230.Google Scholar
Paris, Q. & Knapp, K. (1989). Estimation of von Liebig response functions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 71, 178–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS Institute Inc. (1989). SAS/STAT® User's Guide, Version 6, 4th edn, Vol. 2. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Sieling, K., Günther-Borstel, O. & Hanus, H. (1997). Effect of slurry application and mineral nitrogen fertilization on N leaching in different crop combinations. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 128, 79–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sieling, K. & Kage, H. (2006). N balance as an indicator of N leaching in an oilseed rape–winter wheat–winter barley rotation. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 115, 261–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sylvester-Bradley, R. & Chambers, B. J. (1992). The implications of restricting use of fertilizer nitrogen for the productivity of arable crops, their profitability and potential pollution by nitrate. Aspects of Applied Biology 30, 85–94.Google Scholar
Thode, H. C. (2002). Testing for Normality. New York: Dekker.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, P. (1995 a). Konsequenzen für die Projektion von Politikmaßnahmen bei Annahme unterschiedlicher Produktionsfunktionen. In Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaus e.V. 31 (Eds Grosskopf, W., Hanf, C.-H., Heidhues, F. & Zeddies, J.), pp. 389–404. Münster-Hiltrup, Germany: Landwirtschaftsverlag.Google Scholar
Wagner, P. (1995 b). Überlegungen zur Modellierung von Produktionsfunktionen. In Berichte der GIL 7 (Eds Noell, C. & Pohlmann, J. M.), pp. 306–313. Halle: Gesellschaft für Informatik in derLandwirtschaft.Google Scholar