Evaluating an Online Tool for Managing Water and Nitrogen ...calasa.ucdavis.edu/files/287342.pdf•...

Preview:

Citation preview

Evaluating an Online Tool for Managing Water and

Nitrogen Fertilizer for Celery and Strawberry

Production in California

Andre Biscaro,Irrigation and Water Resources Advisor

Univ. of Calif. Cooperative Extension, Ventura County

Need for increased water and nitrogen use efficiency

• Environmental stewardship/regulations

• Yield and quality

Web-based Software Examples

• Agrian https://home.agrian.com/

• AgWorld www.agworld.co

• AgriTracking Systems http://www.agritrackingsystems.com/

• SMART! Fertilizer Management http://www.smart-fertilizer.com/

Inputs vary significantly

• Different nutrient budgeting methods

• Soil samples

• Satellite images

• Weather station data

• Soil moisture sensors

• Mapping

• Expected yield

Other factors to consider

• Costs

• Accuracy

• User interface

Database driven web application

Crop ET model

Crop N model

Water Recommendation

N fertilizer Recommendation

Soil and Ranch

Soil nitrate test

CIMIS ETo

www.cropmanage.ucanr.edu

General Objectives

➢ Better understand plant growth and needs for water and N

➢ Create practical and efficient means for water and N fertilizer management

Specific Objective

Assess CropManage’s water and nitrogen fertilizer recommendations

Waterrecommendation

✓ Irrigation system application rate

✓ Irrigation system applicationuniformity (DU)

✓ Leaching fraction (water salinity)

How Much Water?

Kc

x

ETo

How is N fertilizer rate determined?

Soil N:Quick Test

Fertilizer N = Crop N uptake and Soil N threshold

Crop uptake???

(ppm NO3-N) (weekly lbs N/acre)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Lbs

N/A

DAP

UC Studies

Field Assessments –Strawberry

• 3 fields, randomized complete block design

• 2 treatments: Water and N fertilizer managed according to

CropManage (CM) vs Grower Standard (GS)

• 2 years

Results Summary - Strawberry

Year County Marketable Yield of CropManage

Water use of CropManage

Fertilizer use of CropMange

relative to grower standard:2015-

2016

Ventura 22% higher (P=0.0008 )

14% higher 34% higher

2016-2017

Ventura 27% higher (P=0.0023)

32% higher 26% higher

2016-

2017

Monterey 2% higher (P<0.05)

29% lower 10% lower

Field details

✓ Location: Oxnard, CA

✓ Cultivar: Fronteras

✓ 1.6m (64”) bed, two high flow tapes

✓ 7.6m (25ft) long plots

✓ Soil: Hueneme loamy sand (6% clay, 83% sand and 11% silt)

✓ Water: EC = 1.6 dS/m

✓ Pre-plant fertilizer (controlled release): 197 kg N ha-1

✓ Main N fertilizer source: CN9

Strawberry ExampleCM GS CM GS GS CM CM GS

Flow meters

Weekly soil sample for nitrate

Soil Moisture Sensors

In-Season N Fertilizer Applied

*Pre-plant fertilizer (controlled release): 176 lbs N/acre

kg N

ha-1

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

CM GS

Cumulative Drip-Applied WaterTotal Precipitation = 258mm total

mm

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

CM GS

0

10

20

30

40

Soil Moisture at 15cm depth

0

10

20

30

Wet

---

----

----

----

----

Dry

CM GS

(-kPa)

Canopy Coverage

0

20

40

60

80

100

CM GS

(%)

Marketable Yield

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

Grams/plot

CM GS

CM/GSJan 2%Feb 0%

March -2%April 36%May 73%June 26%Avg 27%

Grams per fruit

0

10

20

30

40

50

60CM GS

Cull rate (%)

0%

10%

20%

30%

CM GS

Results Summary

CM GS CM vs GS

Drip-applied water (mm) 687 510 35% more

Total N fertilizer use (kg N ha-1) (Pre-plant + in-season)

320 (197 + 123)

246 (197 + 49)

30% more

Total marketable yield (kg plot-1) 130.3 (a) 102.2 (b) 27% more

Cull rate (%) 15 (a) 18 (b) 3% less

(Different letters indicate statistically significant differences between treatments)

CM vs GS

2017 2016

Water 35% more 14% more

N fertilizer 30% more 34% more

Yield 27% more* 22% more*

Cull rate 3% less* 1% less*

Results Summary

*Differences were statistically significant

2017 Field Day2016 Field Day

Field Assessments –Celery

• 4 fields, randomized complete block design

• 2 treatments: Water and N fertilizer managed according to

CropManage (CM) vs Grower Standard (GS)

• 2 seasons

Fields Details

Field/Stu

dy

Trial

area

(ha)

Location/

County

Planting date Days to

harvest

Bed

width

(m)

Soil type Rainf

all

(mm)

1 0.5 Ventura Jan 22, 2016 115 1 Hueneme

sandy loam

0

2 0.5 Ventura Aug 9, 2016 91 1 Camarillo

loam

0

3 0.7 Ventura Aug 16, 2016 126 1 Camarillo

sandy loam

0

4 3 Monterey Aug 6, 2016 101 1 Salinas clay

loam

76

Flow meters

Weekly soil sample for nitrate

Soil Moisture Sensors

Results Summary - Celery

Study #

County Study type Marketable yield

Water use Fertilizer use

relative to grower standard:

1 Ventura Replicated 5.8% higher (P=0.286)

1.2% higher 24.1% lower

2 Ventura Replicated 0.7% higher (P=0.864)

22.0% lower 10.6% lower

3 Ventura Replicated 13.5% higher (P=0.448)

2.1% higher 24.3% lower

4 Monterey Replicated 2.6% higher(P=0.411)

11.1% lower 3.7% higher

Nitrogen Fertilization

0

50

100

150

200

250

Kg

N h

a-1

CM GS

24% less (69 kg ha-1)

Applied water (mm)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

CM GS

Results Summary

CM GS CM vs GS

Applied water (mm) 330 325 SimilarTotal N fertilizer use (kg ha-1) 217 287 24% less

Total marketable yield (kg/100m) 2,467* 2,173* -----

*Differences were not statistically significant

Final Thoughts

• Yields of CropManage were either greater or similar compared to comparison treatments for all studies;

• CropManage showed to be efficient in guiding irrigation and N fertilization

• Algorithms for water and N will continue to be revised with more research

Acknowledgements

• California Celery Board

• Hortau®

• Sebastian Korob, Driscoll’s

• Crisalida Berry Farms, Matt Conroy, Ezekiel

• Rio Farms, Danny Pereira

• Dole Fresh Vegetables

• Terry Farms, Will Terry

Questions/comments?

Andre Biscaro asbiscaro@ucanr.edu805-645-1465

Recommended