1 CANOPY REFLECTANCE (HRWW AND HRSW) IN SOUTH DAKOTA ECONOMIC OPTIMUM NITROGEN RATE FOR HRSW IN...
-
Upload
ross-lloyd -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
1
Transcript of 1 CANOPY REFLECTANCE (HRWW AND HRSW) IN SOUTH DAKOTA ECONOMIC OPTIMUM NITROGEN RATE FOR HRSW IN...
1
CANOPY REFLECTANCE (HRWW AND HRSW) IN SOUTH DAKOTA
ECONOMIC OPTIMUM NITROGEN RATE FOR HRSW IN SOUTH DAKOTA
Nitrogen Use Efficiency Meeting
Cheryl Reese*, David Clay*, Dwayne Beck*, John Lukuch‡, Tulsi Kharel*, Sharon Clay*, Dan Long†, and
Gregg Carlson**South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD‡ North Dakota State University, Langdon, ND
†USDA-ARS, Pendleton, Oregon
August 3rd, 2010Stillwater, Oklahoma
Objectives
• Improve N fertilizer recommendations for South Dakota Wheat
• Evaluate canopy reflectance to predict N
• EONR and impact of protein premium / discount
2
Study Location
Study Location
4
Hard Red Winter WheatCanopy
Reflectance
Field Locations
5
HRWW Study Locations
Winner, SD
Remote Sensing Equipment: CropScan, Passive 16 Band Radiometer
• Passive Sensor• Depend on sunlight• Trade-off: collect over wide range, ability to
select wavelengths, and wavebands
Indices
Description IndexCropscan Bands Used to Calculate
IndexMeasurement Authors
Normalized Difference Vegetation
Index
NDVIw
(R830 - R660)(R830 + R660)
Healthy vegetation
reflects more NIR and less visible light.
Rouse, 1973
NDVIn
(R760 - R660) (R760 + R660)
Green Normalized Difference Vegetation
Index
GNDVIw
(R830 - R560) (R830 + R560) More sensitive
to chlorophyll-a than NDVI.
Gitelsonet al., 1996
GNDVIn
(R870 - R568)(R870 + R568)
CRedEdge CRedEdge [R810 / R710]-1Canopy
chlorophyll
Gitelsonet al., 2005
Dakota Lakes, HRWW 2006:Good year for line source irrigation
8
• 04/26/06:– 3-4 leaf,
tillering• 05/11/06:
– Jointing• 05/26
– Boot, – Some awns
visible
04/26/06
05/11/06
Dakota Lakes, Canopy Reflectance
9
HRWW Yield and Protein
10
ParameterN rate
kg-N ha-1 Water kg ha-1 bu A-1
0 6796 10190 6453 96
180 5602 83270 4289 640 3842 5790 3596 53
180 3871 57270 3500 520 1334 2090 1219 18
180 1306 19270 1550 230 1187 1890 982 15
180 938 14270 1255 19
P value <0.01 <0.01LSD (0.05) 746 11
High Water
Moderate High
Moderate Low
Natural (Low)
Yield Main effects Protein
kg-N ha-1
g-protein
kg-grain-1
0 12.990 15.0180 16.6270 17.4P value <0.001LSD (0.05) 1.0WaterHigh 11.7Moderate 14.1Moderate Low 18.3Natural 17.7P Value <0.001LSD (0.05) 1.0
11
HRSW,Dakota Lakes,
2003-2004Canopy
Reflectance, Yield, and
Protein
Field Cultural Practices
• No-Till for 20+ years• Wide variety of rotations
– Beneficial soil / mycorrhyzial interactions
• Average spring soil test NO3– 60 kg-N ha-1
• Previous crop– 2003: Soybeans– 2004: Pinto beans and cowpeas
12
13
Growth Stages
• May 15th – 3-4 leaf, tillering
• June 4th – 6 leaf, end of tillering
• June 14th
– Flag leaf, some awns• June 26th
– Flowering
Saturation Issues
15
NDVIw NDVIn
CRedEdgeGNDVIn
ResultsWhich would you select?
NDVI in SD, HRSW
• Monitor growth stage carefully,
• Collect NDVI before canopy closure to avoid saturation issues
• Around Memorial Day Weekend (End of May, Beginning of June)
Lodging Heads ProteinN Rate
(kg ha-1) N Time1=none
9=allnumber /
plant kg ha-1 bu a-1
g-protein
kg-grain-1
0 0 2.0 3873 58 114100 Pre-E 4 2.8 3905 58 139200 Pre-E 6 2.6 3513 52 152133 Haun 5-6 3 2.9 4167 62 148200 Haun 5-6 3 2.7 3936 59 15167/133 Split 6 2.9 3770 56 152
<0.001 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.0011 0.7 184 3 7
Nitrogen
P ValueLSD (0.05)
Yield
Harvest Parameters
18
Summary: HRSW
• NDVI values should be collected before 5-6 leaf on HRSW (~May 28th or Memorial Day in South Dakota).
• If N is to be applied after 5-6 leaf, CRedEdge appeared to be a
• This study suggests when soil NO3-N is ~60 kg-N ha-1, 130 kg-N ha-1applied 5-6 leaf increases yield, grain protein, and reduces lodging.
19
How Much N Fertilizer to
Apply on HRSW?What Pays?
What Does Not Pay?
20
What Farmers Know at Planting
• N Fertilizer Cost• In SD, with HRSW, some indication
of yield and quality in Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas
• When they have lost $ in the past due to discount on low protein wheat
• When they have made $ with a premium
• Fertilize for protein @ 12% HRWW, @ 14% HRSW
FIELD LOCATIONS
21
Study Locations
HRSW grain market value in SD based on protein premium or discount.
758595
105115125135145155165175
9/1/1998
9/1/1999
9/1/2000
9/1/2001
9/1/2002
9/1/2003
9/1/2004
9/1/2005
9/1/2006
9/1/2007
9/1/2008
Date
$ M
g-1
Discount at 10% Protein
Premium at 16% Protein
Line at $129 Mg-1 is 140-g protein kg-grain-1
where protein premium or discount is zero
22
South Dakota, July 30th, 2010 Commodity Prices & Premium/Discount
23
24
Experimental Design• RCB Design, Each Site, 4 Blocks. • N Treatments:
Pre-Emergence N
In-Season N Haun 5-6
Site N Treatment Name
Zero N 0 0Pre-E Moderate 100 0
Pre-E High 200 0In-S Moderate 0 133
In-S High 0 200Split 67 133
Zero N 0 0Pre-E Moderate 100 0
Pre-E High 150 0In-S Moderate 0 100
In-S High 0 150Split 50 100
Dakota Lakes 2003 and
2004, mixed grass prairie
Langdon 2004 - 2007, tall
grass praririe
kg-N ha-1
Determined Apparent Return and EONR
Calculating Return on N InvestmentApparent Return ($ ha-1)
• Two grain selling price– $129 or $258 Mg-1 ($3.50 or 7.00 bushel-1)
• Three N fertilizer costs– $0.62, $1.25, or $1.90 kg-N-1 or – ($0.28, $0.57, or $0.86 lb-N-1)
• Six Protein Premium / Discount Scenarios• N applied Pre-Emergence or In-Season
)ha N-kg ($ Cost N kg ($ Price x )ha (kg Yield
)ha ($ Return Apparent1-1-1-
-1
)
1 $/kg N $ kg/ha)N
$/kg wheat$ kg/ha) Yield
$/ha N costd
$/ha wheatvalue
(d
(dd
25
26
100 140 160
Description
Zero, no discount or premium
129 129 129
Discount only 122 129 129
Low discount & average premium
122 129 147
Moderate discount & average premium
105 129 147
High discount & average premium
90 129 147
Low discount & high premium
122 129 161
Zero, no discount or premium
257 257 257
Discount only 244 257 257
Low discount & average premium
244 257 293
Moderate discount & average premium
209 257 293
High discount & average premium
179 257 293
Low discount & high premium
244 257 322
METRIC
Low Grain Value, $129 MG -1
High Grain Value, $257 MG -1
g-protein kg-grain-1
Grain Value
10 14 16
Description
Zero, no discount or premium
3.50 3.50 3.50
Discount only 3.32 3.50 3.50
Low discount & average premium
3.32 3.50 4.00
Moderate discount & average premium
2.86 3.50 4.00
High discount & average premium
2.45 3.50 4.00
Low discount & high premium
3.32 3.50 4.38
Zero, no discount or premium7.00 7.00 7.00
Discount only 6.64 7.00 7.00
Low discount & average premium
6.64 7.00 7.97
Moderate discount & average premium
5.69 7.00 7.97
High discount & average premium
4.87 7.00 7.97
Low discount & high premium
6.64 7.00 8.76
ENGLISH
Low Grain Value, $3.50 bushel -1
High Grain Value, $7.00 bushel -1
% Protein
Grain Value
$0.62$1.25$1.90$0.62$1.25$1.90$0.62$1.25$1.90
$0.62$1.25$1.90$0.62$1.25$1.90$0.62$1.25$1.90
High discount
High premium
High discount
High premium
Zero
Discount only
Low discount
Moderate discount
Use $ kg-grain-1
from yield N response function
and subtract N fertilizer cost to obtain Apparent
Return ($ ha-1)
Use Excel Solver™ to Maximize
Apparent Return
($ ha-1) Based on
kg-N ha-1 Applied and Determine
EONR
Determine $ kg-
grain-1 based on yield N response
function and protein premium / discount scenario
Zero
Discount only
Low discount
Moderate discount
257
129
Protein N Response Function
Run each scenario through Excel
Solver™ to determine EONR $129 or
$257 Mg-1
$0.62, $1.25 or
$1.90 kg-N-1
Determine grain protein based on
protein N response function
Select Grain Selling Value
Select N Fertilizer
Cost
Determine Apparent
Return ($ ha-1) Using Eqn. 3.6
EONR Using Excel SolverTM
27
28
Results: Apparent
Return, and Economic
Optimum N Rate(EONR),Yield, and Protein
Nitrogen Treatment Impact for Different Protein Premium / Discount Scenarios on
Apparent Return ($ ha-1)
29
0.62 1.25 1.90 0.62 1.25 1.90
Zero
Discount Only
Low Discount
Mod. or High N Applied In-S
Moderate Discount
High Discount
High Premium
Mod. or High N Applied In-S
Zero or Mod. N Applied In-S
Moderate N Applied Pre-E
or In-SZero N
Moderate N Applied Pre-E
Zero
Moderate N Applied Pre-E or In-SHigh N
Applied In-S
Protein Premium or
Discount Scenario
Grain Value ($129 Mg-1)
N Fertilizer Cost ($ kg-N-1)
Grain Value ($258 Mg-1)
N Treatment w/ Greatest Apparent Return, $ ha-1
30
EONR: Application TimePre-Emergence or In-Season?
• Tested 36 scenarios:– Six Sites– Three fertilizer prices– Two grain selling prices
• Out of these:– EONR In-S or Pre-emergence the
same: 22 scenarios– In-S EONR Higher: 10– Pre-emergence EONR Higher: 4
Fertilizer Cost and EONR: % N Fertilizer Reduction
$ kg-N-1
EONR kg-N ha-1
(@$258 Mg-1)
EONR kg-N ha-1
(@$129 Mg-1)%
Reduction0.62 110 89 191.25 89 47 471.90 63 24 62
31
EONR at Langdon and Rainfall
• $129 Mg-1 a)
$0.62 kg-N-1
EONR = 1.4 (cm rain) + 31.1
R2 = 0.38
$1.25 kg-N-1
EONR = 2.3 (cm rain) - 66.1
R2 = 0.66
$1.90 kg-N-1
EONR = 1.3 (cm rain) - 36.2
R2 = 0.27
020406080
100120140160
40 50 60 70
cm rainfall
EO
NR
(k
g-N
ha
-1)
$0.62
$1.25
$1.90
32
33
Need Rain forin-season N
34
Conclusions• Indices show great promise in SD to
manage in-season N for both HRWW and HRSW; need more fields.
• N fertilizer price affects wheat EONR. • Development of a online EONR
prediction model for wheat incorporating:– N fertilizer cost options– Value of grain– Different protein premium/discounts
scenarios– Tillage / Climate Impacts on N mineralization:
• Microorganism competition for N• Mycorrhizal colonization and contributions
EONR Calculator for Wheat
Central tall grass prairie Discount PremiumNorthern mixed grass prairie Zero ZeroNorthern short grass prairie Discount Only Zero
Low Discount Moderate PremiumModerate Discount Moderate PremiumHigh Discount Moderate PremiumLow Discount High Premium
ORSet protein
14%
Non-Responsive sitesYesNo
Select N source$250 $325 $400 $475 $ / ton-fertilizer$0.45 $0.58 $0.71 $0.85 $ / lb-N$5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $ / bu
Nitrogen PriceWheat Price
Choose Protein Discount / PremiumChoose Region
UAN (28%)
Set N fertilizer cost and wheat selling price
Questions / Thank you!
Scientists:• David Clay (SDSU)• Sharon Clay (SDSU)• Dwayne Beck (SDSU)• Gregg Carlson (SDSU)• Dan Long (USDA-ARS)
Farmers and Support Staff at SDSU
• Dan Forgey (Farmer)• Ralph Holzwarth (Farmer)• Ryan Patterson (Farmer)• Steph Hansen (SDSU)• Jon Kleinjan (SDSU)• Ryan Brunner (SDSU)• Tulsi Kharel (SDSU) 36
South Dakota State University
37
Yield, Lodging, and Grain
Protein
LodgingGrain
Protein
kg ha-1 bu a-11= none 9
= all
g-protein
kg-grain-1
Site
Dakota Lakes 2003 3735 56 4.2 152
Dakota Lakes 2004 3986 59 3.2 135
Langdon 2004 3938 59 1 135
Langdon 2005 4513 67 2.5 144
Langdon 2006 3190 47 1 142
Langdon 2007 3462 51 1.8 137
P Value <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
LSD (0.05) 187 3 0.7 4
N Time/Rate
Zero N 3392 50 1.1 121
Pre-E, Moderate 3894 58 2.5 140
Pre-E, High 3799 57 3.6 146
Haun 5-6, Moderate 3844 57 2 144
Haun 5-6, High 3939 59 1.6 148
Split, Pre-E & Haun 5-6 3956 59 3 146
P Value <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
LSD (0.05) 198 3 0.8 5
Grain Yield
38
05/26/2006
Winner Field, 2006:A Challenging Field
39