spatial variation of soil constraints and its implications for site-specific soil and nutrient...
TRANSCRIPT
Spatial variation of soil constraints and its
implications for site-specific soil and nutrient
management in conservation agriculture
Yash Dang, Lindsay Bell and Ram Dalal
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Mean 1.79
SD 0.39
CV 21.5%
Mean 0.91
SD 0.31
CV 34.5%
Mean 1.29
SD 0.40
CV 31.2%
Mean 18.9
SD 10.7
CV 56.6
Variation between seasons >
Variation within a season
PM should consider both spatial
and temporal aspects
a. Grower’s Knowledge & Experience
Measuring Variability
Heavy black soil, brigalow softwood
High yielding
Open black soil, plain, no tree
Medium yielding
Light soil, box, scattered brigalow
Poor yielding
b. Continuously (on the go yield monitoring)
Measuring Variability
b. Continuously (proximal sensing)
Measuring Variability
ECa (mS/m)
0 50 100 150 200 250
Avera
ge w
heat yie
ld (
t/h
a)
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Y=3.95 - 0.02 ECa_LL, r2=0.97
NS; ECa_UL
c. Remotely (Satellite imagery, Landsat)
Measuring Variability
near-IR – red
near-IR + red
NDVI_2007
0.2 0.4 0.6
Wh
ea
t g
rain
yie
ld_
20
07
(t/
ha
)
0
1
2
3
4
5Y = 6.48 - 0.35 NDVI, r2=0.79
d. Discretely (point sampling of soil)
Measuring Variability
Potential management classes
Ground-truthing
Cl (mg/kg)
0 500 1000
So
il d
ep
th (
m)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
Low
Medium
High
EMgP (%)
30 60
NO3-N (mg/kg)
0 20 40
VMCLL
(cm3/cm3)
0.2 0.3 0.4
Site-specific soil management:
Amelioration
Gypsum responses
Cumulative gross margin for surface applied gypsum $143/ha over 3-4 years
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Wheat 2005 Chickpea 2007 Wheat 2008
Gra
in y
ield
(t/
ha
)Gypsum 0
Gypsum 2.5 t/ha (2005)
a a
a
a
b
b
Gypsum reduces Cl concentration
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 500 1000 1500
Cl (mg/kg)
So
il d
ep
th (
cm
)
Control
Gypsum spread
115 t
NaCl
98
7
4
56
3
2
1
16
15
13
14
121110
0 2 5 0 5 0 0 7 5 0 1 ,0 0 01 2 5M e te rs
Low
Medium
High
N46N23N0
N46N0N23
N0N23N46
Applied nitrogen (kg N/ha)
0 10 20 30 40 50
Wheat
gra
in y
ield
(t/
ha)
1
2
3
4
5High
Medium
Low
Site-specific nutrients management:
Matching inputs
Matching Inputs to Realistic Yield Potential
• Determine realistic yield potential
in presence of soil constraints
Realistic Yield Potential = Ymax
Soil constraints Soil Nutrition
Ymax = (Starting Soil Water + In Crop Rain) * Water Use Efficiency
Nitrogen Requirement
N required (kg/ha) = (RYP x protein goal x 1.75 x 2)- Av. NO3-N to 0.9 m
NO3-N (mg/kg)
0 20 40
Soil
de
pth
(m
)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
Low
Medium
High
Matching Nitrogen Fertilizer: EconomicsZone 1
(20 ha)
Low
Zone 2
(28 ha)
Medium
Zone 3
(16 ha)
High
Field average
(64 ha)
Realistic yield potential
(t/ha)
Nitrogen requirement
(kg N/ha)
Average available N in
the soil (kg N/ha)
Farmer’s rate (kg N/ha)
Actual N required (kg
N/ha)
Consequence of uniform
N application
3.36
150
3.9 t urea
required
114
46
36
1.29
59
2.0 t urea
waste
0
46
119
2.22
100
0.06 t urea
wasted
45
46
55
2.21
101
2.0 t urea
waste
31
46
70
Matching Nitrogen Fertilizer: Environmental
Applied nitrogen (kg N/ha)
0 25 50
N-leachin
g (
kg/h
a)
0
5
10 High
Medium
Low
Applied nitrogen (kg N/ha)
0 25 50N
-de
nitrifica
tio
n (
kg/h
a)
0
7
14 High
Medium
Low
In Summary
Integrate spatial data with grower’s
knowledge and ground-truthing to
identify spatial variability of constraints
to crop production
Evaluate sustainable development
goals (economic, environmental and
social) for site-specific soil and nutrient
management
Thanks to number of colleagues who have
worked on the project over the years
And many more……
Thanks!