Advancing agricultural research using machine learning algorithms

Rising global population and climate change realities dictate that agricultural productivity must be accelerated. Results from current traditional research approaches are difficult to extrapolate to all possible fields because they are dependent on specific soil types, weather conditions, and background management combinations that are not applicable nor translatable to all farms. A method that accurately evaluates the effectiveness of infinite cropping system interactions (involving multiple management practices) to increase maize and soybean yield across the US does not exist. Here, we utilize extensive databases and artificial intelligence algorithms and show that complex interactions, which cannot be evaluated in replicated trials, are associated with large crop yield variability and thus, potential for substantial yield increases. Our approach can accelerate agricultural research, identify sustainable practices, and help overcome future food demands

Field validation of a farmer supplied data approach to close soybean yield gaps in the US North Central region

CONTEXT: Producer-reported data can be used to identify suites of management practices that lead to higher yield and profit. However, a rigorous validation of the approach in relation to its potential impact on farmer yield and profit is lacking. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to validate a producer-data approach on its capability to guide on-farm evaluation of management practices with greatest potential for increasing producer yield and profit. We show proof of concept using soybean in the North Central US region as a case study. METHODS: We used a combination of regression tree analysis and a spatial framework to determine practices with highest influence on yield for specific climate domains across the region. These practices were used as a basis for designing an ‘improved’ management package for each domain. The impact associated with adoption of the ‘improved’ management package on producer yield, seed constituents, and profit was evaluated against a ‘reference’ treatment that follows farmer management via replicated on-farm trials across 100 sites over two crop seasons. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Average yield was 278 kg ha-1 higher in the improved versus reference management, equivalent to a closure of the current exploitable yield gap by 40%. In turn, adoption of the improved management led to an average increase of $76 ha-1 in net profit. Sensitivity analysis showed that adoption of the improved management packages should increase farmer profit across a wide range of grain price scenarios, with very small downside risk. Seed protein concentration was negatively associated with the positive yield advantage of the improved management, whereas seed oil concentration tended to increase. SIGNIFICANCE: Analysis of producer data can accelerate discovery, evaluation, and adoption of suites of management practices that consistently lead to higher farmer yield and profit, which, in turn, would help speed up current rates of yield gain

Assessing causes of yield gaps in agricultural areas with diversity in climate and soils

Identification of causes of gaps between yield potential and producer yields has been restricted to small geographic areas. In the present study, we developed a novel approach for identifying causes of yield gaps over large agricultural areas with diversity in climate and soils. This approach was applied to quantify and explain yield gaps in rainfed and irrigated soybean in the North-Central USA (NC USA) region, which accounts for about one third of soybean global production. Survey data on yield and management were collected from 3568 producer fields over two crop seasons and grouped into 10 technology extrapolation domains (TEDs) according to their soil, climate, and water regime. Yield potential was estimated using a combination of crop modeling and boundary functions for water productivity and compared against highest producer yields derived from the yield distribution in each TED-year. Yield gaps were calculated as the difference between yield potential and average producer yield. Explanatory factors for yield gaps were investigated by identifying management practices that were concordantly associated with high- and low-yield fields. Management × TED interactions were then evaluated to elucidate the underlying causes of yield gaps. The chosen spatial TED framework accounted for about half of the regional variation in producer yield within the NC USA region. Across the 10 TEDs, soybean average yield potential ranged from 3.3 to 5.3 Mg ha−1 for rainfed fields and from 5.3 to 5.6 Mg ha−1for irrigated fields. Highest producer yields in each TED were similar (±12%) to the estimated yield potential. Yield gap, calculated as percentage of yield potential, was larger in rainfed (range: 15–28%) than in irrigated (range: 11–16%) soybean. Upscaled to the NC USA region, yield potential was 4.8 Mg ha−1 (rainfed) and 5.7 Mg ha−1 (irrigated), with a respective yield gap of 22 and 13% of yield potential. Sowing date, tillage, and in-season foliar fungicide and/or insecticide were identified as explanatory causes for yield variation in half or more of the 10 TEDs. However, the degree to which these three factors influenced producer yield varied across TEDs. Analysis of in-season weather helped interpret management × TED interactions. For example, yield increase due to advances in sowing date was greater in TEDs with less water limitation during the pod-setting phase. The present study highlights the strength of combining producer survey data with a spatial framework to measure yield gaps, identify management factors explaining these gaps, and understand the biophysical drivers influencing yield responses to crop management

Defining optimal soybean seeding rates and associated risk across North America

Soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] seeding rate research across North America is typically conducted in small geo-political regions where environmental effects on the seeding rate × yield relationship are minimized. Data from 211 individual field studies (∼21,000 data points, 2007–2017) were combined from across North America ranging in yield from 1,000– 7,500 kg ha−1. Cluster analysis was used to stratify each individual field study into similar environmental (soil × climate) clusters and into high (HYL), medium (MYL), and low (LYL) yield levels. Agronomically optimal seeding rates (AOSR) were calculated and Monte Carlo risk analysis was implemented. Within the two northern most clusters the AOSR was higher in the LYL followed by the MYL and then HYL. Within the farthest south cluster, a relatively small (±15,000 seeds ha−1) change in seeding rate from the MYL was required to reach the AOSR of the LYL and HYL, respectively. The increase in seeding rate to reach the LYL AOSR was relatively greater (5x) than the decrease to reach the HYL AOSR within the northern most cluster. Regardless, seeding rates below the AOSR presented substantial risk and potential yield loss, while seeding rates above provided slight risk reduction and yield increases. Specific to LYLs and MYLs, establishing and maintaining an adequate plant stand until harvest maximized yield regardless of the seeding rate, while maximizing seed number was important with lower seeding rates. These findings will help growers manage their soybean seed investment by adjusting seeding rates based upon the productivity of the environment.Fil: Gaspar, Adam P.. Dow Agrosciences Argentina Sociedad de Responsabilidad Limitada.; ArgentinaFil: Mourtzinis, Spyridon. University of Wisconsin; Estados UnidosFil: Kyle, Don. Dow Agrosciences Argentina Sociedad de Responsabilidad Limitada.; ArgentinaFil: Galdi, Eric. Dow Agrosciences Argentina Sociedad de Responsabilidad Limitada.; ArgentinaFil: Lindsey, Laura E.. Ohio State University; Estados UnidosFil: Hamman, William P.. Ohio State University; Estados UnidosFil: Matcham, Emma G. University of Wisconsin; Estados UnidosFil: Kandel, Hans J.. North Dakota State University; Estados UnidosFil: Schmitz, Peder. North Dakota State University; Estados UnidosFil: Stanley, Jordan D.. North Dakota State University; Estados UnidosFil: Schmidt, John P.. Dow Agrosciences Argentina Sociedad de Responsabilidad Limitada.; ArgentinaFil: Mueller, Daren S.. University of Iowa; Estados UnidosFil: Nafziger, Emerson D.. University of Illinois; Estados UnidosFil: Ross, Jeremy. University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences; Estados UnidosFil: Carter, Paul R.. Dow Agrosciences Argentina Sociedad de Responsabilidad Limitada.; ArgentinaFil: Varenhorst, Adam J.. University of South Dakota; Estados UnidosFil: Wise, Kiersten A.. University of Kentucky; Estados UnidosFil: Ciampitti, Ignacio Antonio. Kansas State University; Estados UnidosFil: Carciochi, Walter Daniel. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Mar del Plata; Argentina. Kansas State University; Estados UnidosFil: Chilvers, Martin I.. Michigan State University; Estados UnidosFil: Hauswedell, Brady. University of South Dakota; Estados UnidosFil: Tenuta, Albert U.. University of Guelph; CanadáFil: Conley, Shawn P.. University of Wisconsin; Estados Unido

Neonicotinoid seed treatments of soybean provide negligible benefits to US farmers

Neonicotinoids are the most widely used insecticides worldwide and are typically deployed as seed treatments (hereafter NST) in many grain and oilseed crops, including soybeans. However, there is a surprising dearth of information regarding NST effectiveness in increasing soybean seed yield, and most published data suggest weak, or inconsistent yield benefit. The US is the key soybean-producing nation worldwide and this work includes soybean yield data from 194 randomized and replicated field studies conducted specifically to evaluate the effect of NSTs on soybean seed yield at sites within 14 states from 2006 through 2017. Here we show that across the principal soybean-growing region of the country, there are negligible and management-specific yield benefits attributed to NSTs. Across the entire region, the maximum observed yield benefits due to fungicide (FST = fungicide seed treatment) + neonicotinoid use (FST + NST) reached 0.13 Mg/ha. Across the entire region, combinations of management practices affected the effectiveness of FST + N ST to increase yield but benefits were minimal ranging between 0.01 to 0.22 Mg/ha. Despite widespread use, this practice appears to have little benefit for most of soybean producers; across the entire region, a partial economic analysis further showed inconsistent evidence of a break-even cost of FST or FST + N ST. These results demonstrate that the current widespread prophylactic use of NST in the key soybean-producing areas of the US should be re-evaluated by producers and regulators alike

Neonicotinoid seed treatments of soybean provide negligible benefits to US farmers

Neonicotinoids are the most widely used insecticides worldwide and are typically deployed as seed treatments (hereafter NST) in many grain and oilseed crops, including soybeans. However, there is a surprising dearth of information regarding NST effectiveness in increasing soybean seed yield, and most published data suggest weak, or inconsistent yield benefit. The US is the key soybean-producing nation worldwide and this work includes soybean yield data from 194 randomized and replicated field studies conducted specifically to evaluate the effect of NSTs on soybean seed yield at sites within 14 states from 2006 through 2017. Here we show that across the principal soybean-growing region of the country, there are negligible and management-specific yield benefits attributed to NSTs. Across the entire region, the maximum observed yield benefits due to fungicide (FST = fungicide seed treatment) + neonicotinoid use (FST + NST) reached 0.13 Mg/ha. Across the entire region, combinations of management practices affected the effectiveness of FST + N ST to increase yield but benefits were minimal ranging between 0.01 to 0.22 Mg/ha. Despite widespread use, this practice appears to have little benefit for most of soybean producers; across the entire region, a partial economic analysis further showed inconsistent evidence of a break-even cost of FST or FST + N ST. These results demonstrate that the current widespread prophylactic use of NST in the key soybean-producing areas of the US should be re-evaluated by producers and regulators alike

A machine learning interpretation of the contribution of foliar fungicides to soybean yield in the north‐central United States

Foliar fungicide usage in soybeans in the north-central United States increased steadily over the past two decades. An agronomically-interpretable machine learning framework was used to understand the importance of foliar fungicides relative to other factors associated with realized soybean yields, as reported by growers surveyed from 2014 to 2016. A database of 2738 spatially referenced fields (of which 30% had been sprayed with foliar fungicides) was fit to a random forest model explaining soybean yield. Latitude (a proxy for unmeasured agronomic factors) and sowing date were the two most important factors associated with yield. Foliar fungicides ranked 7th out of 20 factors in terms of relative importance. Pairwise interactions between latitude, sowing date and foliar fungicide use indicated more yield benefit to using foliar fungicides in late-planted fields and in lower latitudes. There was a greater yield response to foliar fungicides in higher-yield environments, but less than a 100 kg/ha yield penalty for not using foliar fungicides in such environments. Except in a few production environments, yield gains due to foliar fungicides sufficiently offset the associated costs of the intervention when soybean prices are near-to-above average but do not negate the importance of disease scouting and fungicide resistance management

Distribution of Structural Carbohydrates in Corn Plants Across the Southeastern USA

Quantifying lignin and carbohydrate composition of corn (Zea mays L.) is important to support the emerging cellulosic biofuels industry. Therefore, field studies with 0 or 100 % stover removal were established in Alabama and South Carolina as part of the Sun Grant Regional Partnership Corn Stover Project. In Alabama, cereal rye (Secale cereale L.) was also included as an additional experimental factor, serving as a winter cover crop. Plots were located on major soil types representative of their respective states: Compass and Decatur soils in Alabama and a Coxville/Rains-Goldsboro-Lynchburg soil association in South Carolina. Lignin and structural carbohydrate concentrations in the whole (above-ground) plant, cobs, vegetation excluding cobs above the primary ear (top), vegetation below the primary ear (bottom), and vegetation from above the primary ear including cobs (above-ear fraction) were determined using near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS). The distribution of lignin, ash, and structural carbohydrates varied among plant fractions, but neither inclusion of a rye cover crop nor the stover harvest treatments consistently affected carbohydrate concentrations within locations. Total precipitation and average air temperature during the growing season were strongly correlated with stover composition indicating that weather conditions may have multiple effects on potential biofuel production (i.e., not only yield but also stover quality). When compared to the above-ear fractions, bottom plant partitions contained greater lignin concentrations. Holocellulose concentration was consistently greater in the above-ear fractions at all three locations. Data from this study suggests that the above-ear plant portions have the most desirable characteristics for cellulosic ethanol production via fermentation in the southeastern USA

Assessing approaches for stratifying producer fields based on biophysical attributes for regional yield-gap analysis

Large databases containing producer field-level yield and management records can be used to identify causes of yield gaps. A relevant question is how to account for the diverse biophysical background (i.e., climate and soil) across fields and years, which can confound the effect of a given management practice on yield. Here we evaluated two approaches to group producer fields based on biophysical attributes: (i) a technology extrapolation domain spatial framework (‘TEDs’) that delineates regions with similar (long-term average) annual weather and soil water storage capacity and (ii) clusters based on field-specific soil properties and weather during each crop phase in each year. As a case study, we used yield and management data collected from 3462 rainfed fields sown with soybean across the North Central US (NC-US) during four growing seasons (2014–2017). Following the TED approach, fields were grouped into 18 TEDs based on the TED that corresponded to the geographic location of each field. In the cluster approach, fields were grouped into clusters based on similarity of in-season weather and soil. To evaluate how the number of clusters would affect the results, fields were grouped separately into 5, 10, 18, and 30 clusters. The two stratification approaches (TEDs and clusters) were compared on their ability to explain the observed yield variation and yield response to key management factors (sowing date and foliar fungicide and/or insecticide). Lack of stratification of producer fields based on their biophysical background ignored management by environment (M×E) interactions, leading to spurious relationships and results that are not relevant at local level. In the case of the cluster approach, a fine stratification (18 and 30 clusters) explained a larger portion of the yield variance compared with a coarse stratification (5 and 10 clusters). However, for our case study in the NC-US region, we did not find strong evidence that the data-rich clustering approach outperformed the TEDs on the ability to explain yield variation and identify M×E interactions. Only the stratification into 30 clusters exhibited a small improved ability at explaining yield variation compared with the TEDs. However, the use of the clustering approach had important trade-offs, including large amount of data requirements and difficulties to scale results to different regions and over time. The choice of the stratification method should be based on objectives, data availability, and expected variation in yield due to erratic weather across regions and years