Simulating spatial variability of cereal yields from historical yield maps and satellite imagery

[Abstract]: The management of spatial variability of crop yields relies on the availability of affordable and accurate spatial data. Yield maps are a direct measure of the crop yields, however, costs and difficulties in collection and processing to generate yield maps results in poor availability of such data in Australia. In this study, we used historical mid-season normalised difference vegetation index (NDVI), generated from Landsat imagery over 4 years. Using linear regression model, the NDVI was compared to the actual yield map from a 257 ha paddock. The difference between actual and predicted yield showed that 77% and 93% of the paddock area had an error of <20% and <30%, respectively. The linear model obtained in the paddock was used to simulate crop yield for an adjoining paddock of 162 ha. On an average of 4 years, the difference between actual and simulated yield showed that 87% of the paddock had an error of <20%. However, this error varied from season to season. Paddock area with <20% error increased exponentially with decreasing in-crop rainfall between anthesis and crop maturity. Furthermore, the error in simulating crop yield also varied with the soil constraints. Paddock zones with high concentrations of subsoil chloride and surface soil exchangeable sodium percentage generally had higher percent of error in simulating crop yields. Satellite imagery consistently over-predicted cereal yields in areas with subsoil constraints, possibly due to chloride-induced water stress during grain filling. The simulated yield mapping methodology offers an opportunity to identify within-field spatial variability using satellite imagery as a surrogate measure of biomass. However, the ability to successfully simulate crop yields at farm scale or regional scale requires wider evaluation across different soil types and climatic conditions

Diagnosis, extent, impacts, and management of subsoil constraints in the northern grains cropping region of Australia

Productivity of grain crops grown under dryland conditions in north-eastern Australia depends on efficient use of rainfall and available soil moisture accumulated in the period preceding sowing. However, adverse subsoil conditions including high salinity, sodicity, nutrient imbalances, acidity, alkalinity, and high concentrations of chloride (Cl) and sodium (Na) in many soils of the region restrict ability of crop roots to access this stored water and nutrients. Planning for sustainable cropping systems requires identification of the most limiting constraint and understanding its interaction with other biophysical factors. We found that the primary effect of complex and variable combinations of subsoil constraints was to increase the crop lower limit (CLL), thereby reducing plant available water. Among chemical subsoil constraints, subsoil Cl concentration was a more effective indicator of reduced water extraction and reduced grain yields than either salinity or sodicity (ESP). Yield penalty due to high subsoil Cl was seasonally variable, with more in-crop rainfall (ICR) resulting in less negative impact. A conceptual model to determine realistic yield potential in the presence of subsoil Cl was developed from a significant positive linear relationship between CLL and subsoil Cl:Since grid sampling of soil to identify distribution of subsoil Cl, both spatially across landscape and within soil profile, is time-consuming and expensive, we found that electromagnetic induction, coupled with yield mapping and remote sensing of vegetation offers potential to rapidly identify possible subsoil Cl at paddock or farm scale.Plant species and cultivars were evaluated for their adaptations to subsoil Cl. Among winter crops, barley and triticale, followed by bread wheat, were more tolerant of high subsoil Cl concentrations than durum wheat. Chickpea and field pea showed a large decrease in yield with increasing subsoil Cl concentrations and were most sensitive of the crops tested. Cultivars of different winter crops showed minor differences in sensitivity to increasing subsoil Cl concentrations. Water extraction potential of oilseed crops was less affected than cereals with increasing levels of subsoil Cl concentrations. Among summer crops, water extraction potential of millet, mungbean, and sesame appears to be more sensitive to subsoil Cl than that of sorghum and maize; however, the differences were significant only to 0.7 m. Among pasture legumes, lucerne was more tolerant to high subsoil Cl concentrations than the others studied.Surface applied gypsum significantly improved wheat grain yield on soils with ESP >6 in surface soil (0–0.10 m). Subsurface applied gypsum at 0.20–0.30 m depth did not affect grain yield in the first year of application; however, there was a significant increase in grain yield in following years. Better subsoil P and Zn partially alleviated negative impact of high subsoil Cl. Potential savings from improved N fertilisation decisions for paddocks with high subsoil Cl are estimated at ~$AU10 million per annum

Additive effects of Na+ and Cl– ions on barley growth under salinity stress

Soil salinity affects large areas of the world’s cultivated land, causing significant reductions in crop yield. Despite the fact that most plants accumulate both sodium (Na+) and chloride (Cl–) ions in high concentrations in their shoot tissues when grown in saline soils, most research on salt tolerance in annual plants has focused on the toxic effects of Na+ accumulation. It has previously been suggested that Cl– toxicity may also be an important cause of growth reduction in barley plants. Here, the extent to which specific ion toxicities of Na+ and Cl– reduce the growth of barley grown in saline soils is shown under varying salinity treatments using four barley genotypes differing in their salt tolerance in solution and soil-based systems. High Na+, Cl–, and NaCl separately reduced the growth of barley, however, the reductions in growth and photosynthesis were greatest under NaCl stress and were mainly additive of the effects of Na+ and Cl– stress. The results demonstrated that Na+ and Cl– exclusion among barley genotypes are independent mechanisms and different genotypes expressed different combinations of the two mechanisms. High concentrations of Na+ reduced K+ and Ca2+ uptake and reduced photosynthesis mainly by reducing stomatal conductance. By comparison, high Cl– concentration reduced photosynthetic capacity due to non-stomatal effects: there was chlorophyll degradation, and a reduction in the actual quantum yield of PSII electron transport which was associated with both photochemical quenching and the efficiency of excitation energy capture. The results also showed that there are fundamental differences in salinity responses between soil and solution culture, and that the importance of the different mechanisms of salt damage varies according to the system under which the plants were grown

Is it worth subsoil testing for Nitrogen?

In WA, soil testing for mineral N (ammonium plus nitrate) has traditionally been taken from the top 0-0.1 m. Farmers and advisors are now interested in deeper soil testing, in order to know how much mineral N occurs at depth and what this may mean in terms of fertiliser N application decisions. Accounting for topsoil and subsoil test level in N fertiliser use varies markedly among growers and advisors depending on; their own historic applications; use of nitrogen decision support tools (N-DSS’s) such as Yield Prophet simulations or SYN. Other growers use approximate total soil profile N and then add N fertiliser required to reach target yield (i.e. 45 kg N/ha for 1 t/ha of grain). The main question this paper is addressing is “Do I need to soil test to depth for better N decisions?” To answer this we needed to understand: 1. Where in the profile the subsoil N occurs and if it is related to topsoil N, 2. How effective is the subsoil in supplying N for the crop – which depends on root access to subsoil N as affected by subsoil constraints and N leaching, 3. What does this mean for N recommendation systems based on soil testing? and 4. Given the seasonal interaction with yield response, will the subsoil N test results reduce the errors in recommendations enough to justify this extra complexity, cost and effort

Grains Research and Development Science Highlights 2015-17

Western Australian grain production and industry value has quadrupled over the past 30 years, despite declining winter rainfall, more frost and high temperature events, acidifying soils and increasing input costs. Strong evidence links this productivity growth to R&D that has delivered genetically superior varieties, better agronomic practices and more reliable farming systems. Western Australian grain growers are innovators that rapidly adopt new technology which is increasingly sourced from a wider pool of national and global science, research and innovation. Continuing to push the productivity frontier is not only critical to grower’s profitability, it underpins the international competitiveness of our exports and value-adding opportunities for the Western Australian economy. DAFWA’s Grains R&D team aims to access and evaluate the most relevant new products and technologies under Western Australian grain growing conditions and to integrate the findings to support the rapid and appropriate adoption by Western Australian grain growing businesses

Crop Updates 2008 - Farming Systems

This session covers thirty nine papers from different authors: PLENARY 1. Developments in grain end use, Dr John de Majnik, New Grain Products, GRDC, Mr Paul Meibusch, New Farm Products and Services, GRDC, Mr Vince Logan, New Products Executive Manager, GRDC PRESENTATIONS 2. Global warming potential of wheat production in Western Australia: A life cycle assessment, Louise Barton1, Wahid Biswas2 and Daniel Carter3, 1School of Earth & Geographical Sciences, The University of Western Australia, 2Centre of Excellence in Cleaner Production, Division of Science and Engineering, Curtin University of Technology, 3Department of Agriculture and Food 3. How much fuel does your farm use for different farm operations? Nicolyn Short1, Jodie Bowling1, Glen Riethmuller1, James Fisher2 and Moin Salam1, 1Department of Agriculture and Food, 2Muresk Institute, Curtin University of Technology 4. Poor soil water storage and soil constraints are common in WA cropping soils, Stephen Davies, Jim Dixon, Dennis Van Gool and Alison Slade, Department of Agriculture and Food, Bob Gilkes, School of Earth and Geographical Sciences, University of Western Australia 5. Developing potential adaptations to climate change for low rainfall farming system using economic analysis tool. STEP, Megan Abrahams, Caroline Peek, Dennis Van Gool, Daniel Gardiner and Kari-Lee Falconer, Department of Agriculture and Food 6. What soil limitations affect the profitability of claying on non-wetting sandplain soils? David Hall1, Jeremy Lemon1, Harvey Jones1, Yvette Oliver2 and Tania Butler1, 1Department of Agriculture and Food, 2CSIRO Div Sustainable Ecology, Perth 7. Farming systems adapting to a variable climate; Two case studies, Kari-Lee Falconer, Department of Agriculture and Food 8. Importance of accounting for variation in crop yield potential when making fertiliser decisions, Michael Robertson and Yvette Oliver, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Floreat 9. Soil acidity is a widespread problem across the Avon River Basin, Stephen Carr1, Chris Gazey2, David York1 and Joel Andrew1, 1Precision SoilTech, 2Department of Agriculture and Food 10. The use of soil testing kits and ion-selective electrodes for the analysis of plant available nutrients in Western Australian soils, Michael Simeoni and Bob Gilkes School of Earth and Geographical Sciences, University of Western Australia 11. Redlegged earth mite resistance and integrated strategies for their control in Western Australia, Mangano G. Peter and Micic Svetlana, Department of Agriculture and Food 12. The economics of treating soil pH (liming), Chris Gazey, Steve Davies, Dave Gartner and Adam Clune, Department of Agriculture and Food, 13. Health benefits – A future differentiator for high value grains, Matthew Morell, Theme Leader, CSIRO Food Futures Flagship 14. Carbon in Sustralian cropping soils – We need to be realistic, Alan Umbers (M Rur Sc), GRDC/DAFF Sustainable Industries Initiative Project 15. AGWEST® Bartolo bladder clover (Trifolium spumosum) − a low cost annual pasture legume for the wheat/sheep zone, Angelo Loi, Brad Nutt and Clinton Revell, Department of Agriculture and Food 16. Maximising the value of point based soil sampling: Monitering trends in soil pH through time, Joel Andrew1, David York1, Stephen Carr1 and Chris Gazey2, 1Precision SoilTech, 2Department of Agriculture and Food 17. Improved crop root growth and productivity with deep ripping and deep placed lime, Stephen Davies1, Geoff Kew2*, Chris Gazey1, David Gartner1 and Adam Clune1, 1Department of Agriculture and Food, 2School of Earth and Geographical Sciences University of Western Australia, *Presenting author 18. The role of pastures in hosting Root Lesion Nematode (RLN, Pratylenchus neglectus), Vivien Vanstone, Ali Bhatti and Ming Pei You, Department of Agriculture and Food 19. To rip or not to rip. When does it pay? Imma Farre, Bill Bowden and Stephen Davies, Department of Agriculture and Food 20. Can yield be predicted from remotely sensed data, Henry Smolinski, Jane Speijers and John Bruce, Department of Agriculture and Food 21. Rotations for profit, David McCarthy and Gary Lang, Facey Group, Wickepin, WA 22. Rewriting rules for the new cropping economics, David Rees, Consultant, Albany 23. Reducing business risk in Binnu! – A case study, Rob Grima, Department of Agriculture and Food 24. Does improved ewe management offer grain farmers much extra profit? John Young, Farming Systems Analysis Service, Ross Kingwell, Department of Agriculture and Food, and UWA, Chris Oldham, Department of Agriculture and Food RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS 25. Crop establishment and productivity with improved root zone drainage, Dr Derk Bakker, Research Officer, Department of Agriculture and Food 26. Will wheat production in Western Australia be more risky in the future? Imma Farre and Ian Foster, Department of Agriculture and Food PAPERS 27. Building farmers’ adaptive capacity to manage seasonal variability and climate change, David Beard, Department of Agriculture and Food 28. Precision placement increases crop phosphorus uptake under variable rainfall: Simulation studies, Wen Chen1 2, Richard Bell1, Bill Bowden2, Ross Brennan2, Art Diggle2 and Reg Lunt2, 1School of Environmental Science, Murdoch University, 2Department of Agriculture and Food 29. What is the role of grain legumes on red soil farms? Rob Grima, Department of Agriculture and Food 30. Fertiliser placement influences plant growth and seed yield of grain crops at different locations of WA, Qifu Ma1, Zed Rengel1, Bill Bowden2, Ross Brennan2, Reg Lunt2 and Tim Hilder2, 1Soil Science & Plant Nutrition, University of Western Australia, 2Department of Agriculture and Food 31. A review of pest and disease occurrences for 2007, Peter Mangano and Dusty Severtson, Department of Agriculture and Food 32. Effect of stocking rates on grain yield and quality of wheat in Western Australia in 2007, Shahajahan Miyan, Sam Clune, Barb Sage and Tenielle Martin, Department of Agriculture and Food 33. Storing grain is not ‘set and forget’ management, Chris Newman, Department of Agriculture and Food 34. Improving understanding of soil plant available water capacity (PAWC): The WA soil water database (APSoil), Yvette Oliver, Neal Dalgliesh and Michael Robertson, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems 35. The impact of management decisions in drought on a low rainfall northern wheatbelt farm, Caroline Peek and Andrew Blake, Department of Agriculture and Food 37. Cullen – A native pasture legume shows promise for the low-medium rainfall cropping zone, Megan Ryan, Richard Bennett, Tim Colmer, Daniel Real, Jiayin Pang, Lori Kroiss, Dion Nicol and Tammy Edmonds-Tibbett, School of Plant Biology, The University of Western Australia and Future Farm Industries CRC 38. Climate risk management tools – useful, or just another gadget? Lisa Sherriff, Kari-Lee Falconer, Daniel Gardiner and Ron McTaggart Department of Agriculture and Food 39. Benefits of crop rotation for management of Root Lesion Nematode (RLN, Pratylenchus neglectus), Vivien Vanstone, Sean Kelly and Helen Hunter, Department of Agriculture and Foo

The Role of Forages in Sustainable Cropping Systems of Southern Australia

The historical context, recent trends, and possible future role of forages in cropping systems are reviewed. Three recent themes will be developed: 1) The successful exploitation of genetic diversity resulting in commercial development of new legume species as pasture cultivars with specific traits better suited to the needs of current farming systems. 2) Improved understanding of key soil processes under grazed pastures, particularly soil water and soil nitrogen, and how these processes impact on indicators of sustainability like deep drainage and nitrate leaching. 3) An emerging capacity for predicting the effect of pasture-crop sequences on soil processes, crop growth and grain yield. In response to changing economic pressures and threats to sustainability, new farming systems involving forages are continually evolving. Increasing cropping intensity has placed pressure on pasture-crop systems that rely on self-regeneration of annual legumes following crops. One response has been the emergence of phase cropping systems, where a sequence of pasture years is followed by a sequence of cropping years. Another response has been an expansion in the area of lucerne grown in rotation with crops. In the future, forages in cropping systems will continue to fulfil the traditional roles of diversifying farm income through livestock production and supporting the cropping enterprise through maintenance of soil fertility. But increasingly, forages will be utilised to maintain the sustainability of agricultural production systems. Examples include competitive forages as a component of integrated weed management and high water use forages for reducing recharge and the associated spread of dryland salinity