Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T20:03:30.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Capability of crop canopy sensing to predict crop parameters of cut grass swards aiming at early season variable rate nitrogen top dressings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2017

G. Portz ,
M. L. Gnyp  and
J. Jasper
G. Portz*
Affiliation:
Research Centre Hanninghof, Yara International ASA, Hanninghof 35, 48249 Duelmen, Germany
M. L. Gnyp
Affiliation:
Research Centre Hanninghof, Yara International ASA, Hanninghof 35, 48249 Duelmen, Germany
J. Jasper
Affiliation:
Research Centre Hanninghof, Yara International ASA, Hanninghof 35, 48249 Duelmen, Germany
*
†E-mail: gustavo.portz@yara.com
Get access

Abstract

This study aims to evaluate actual biomass and N-uptake estimates with the Yara N-Sensor in intensively managed grass swards across several trial sites in Europe. The dataset was split by location into an independent calibration data (UK and Finland) and a validation data (Germany) for the first two cuts. Yara N-Sensor readings were better correlated with N-uptake (R2=0.71) than actual biomass (R2=0.53) for the 1st cut. At the 2nd cut, the R2 values for both parameters were higher (0.80 and 0.56). A cross-validation with a German grass trial indicated the potential for predicting N-uptake (R2>0.8). It can be concluded that the technology has the potential to guide management decisions and variable rate nitrogen application on European grass swards.

Keywords

grasslandbiomassvariable rate nitrogenN-Sensor
Type
Precision Pasture
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. 792 - 795
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

Barker, AV and Bryson, GM 2007. Nitrogen. In: AV Barker and DJ Pilbeam (Eds.), Handbook of plant nutrition. CRC Press, Boca Raton, London, New York, USA. pp 21–50.Google Scholar
Ergon, A, Kirwan, L, Bleken, MA, Skjelvag, AO, Collins, RP and Rognli, OA 2016. Species interactions in a grassland mixture under low nitrogen fertilization and two cutting frequencies: 1. dry matter yield and dynamics of species composition. Grass and Forage Science 71, 667–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FAO 2014. FAOSTAT.Google Scholar
Gianelle, D and Guastella, F 2007. Nadir and off-nadir hyperspectral field data: strengths and limitations in estimating grassland biophysical characteristics. International Journal of Remote Sensing 28 (7), 1547–1560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jasper, J, Reusch, S and Link, A 2009. Active sensing of the N status of wheat using optimized wavelength combination – impact of seed rate, variety and growth stage. In: Precision Agriculture ‘09: Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Precision Agriculture, edited by Van Henten EJ, Goense D, Lokhorst C, Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, NL, pp 23–30.Google Scholar
Lammel, J, Wollring, J and Reusch, S 2001. Tractor based remote sensing for variable nitrogen fertilizer application. In: WJ Horst, et al. Plant nutrition – Food security and sustainability of agro-ecosystems 694–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schellberg, J, Hill, M, Gerhards, R, Rothmund, M and Braun, M 2008. Precision agriculture on grassland: Application, perspectives and constraints. European Journal of Agronomy 29, 59–71.Google Scholar
Schellberg, J and Verbruggen, E 2014. Frontiers and perspectives on research strategies in grassland technology. Crop and Pasture Science 65, 508–523.Google Scholar
Starks, PJ, Zhao, D and Brown, MA 2008. Estimation of nitrogen concentration and in vitro dry matter digestibility of herbage of warm-season grass pastures from canopy hyperspectral reflectance measurements. Grass and Forage Science 63, 168–178.Google Scholar
Watanabe, N, Sakanoue, S, Lee, HJ, Lim, J, Yoshitoshi, R and Kawamura, K 2014. Use of a hand-held crop growth measuring device to estimate forage crude protein mass of pasture. Grass and Forage Science 60 (4), 214–224.Google Scholar