Search

Attaining high crop yields and increasing carbon storage in agricultural soils, while avoiding negative environmental impacts on water quality, soil erosion, and biodiversity, requires accurate and precise management of crop inputs and management practices. The long-term analysis of spatial and temporal patterns of crop yields provides insights on how yields vary in a field, with parts of field constantly producing either high yields or low yields and other parts that fluctuate from one year to the next. The concept of yield stability has shown to be informative on how plants translate the effects of environmental conditions (e.g., soil, climate, topography) across the field and over the years in the final yield, and as a valuable layer in developing prescription maps of variable fertilizer rate inputs. Using known relationships between soil health and crop yields, we hypothesize that areas with measured constantly low yield will return low carbon to the soil affecting its heath. On this premises, yield stability zones (YSZ) provide an effective and practical integrative measure of the small-scale variability of soil health on a field relative basis. We tested this hypothesis by measuring various metrics of soil health from commercial farmers' fields in the north central Midwest of the USA in samples replicated across YSZ, using a soil test suite commonly used by producers and stakeholders active in agricultural carbon credits markets. We found that the use of YSZ allowed us to successfully partition field-relative soil organic carbon (SOC) and soil health metrics into statistically distinct regions. Low and stable (LS) yield zones were statistically lower in normalized SOC when compared to high and stable (HS) and unstable (US) yield zones. The drivers of the yield differences within a field are a series of factors ranging from climate, topography and soil. LS zones occur in areas of compacted soil layers or shallow soils (edge of the field) on steeper slopes. The US zones occurring with high water flow accumulation, were more dependent on topography and rainfall. The differences in the components of the overall soil health score (SHS) between these YSZ increased with sample depth suggesting a deeper topsoil in the US and HS zones, driven by the accumulation of water, nutrients, and carbon downslope. Comparison of the field management provided initial evidence that zero tillage reduces the magnitude of the variance in SOC and soil health metrics between the YSZ. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

At the plot level, crop simulation models such as STICS have the potential to evaluate risk associated with management practices. In nitrogen (N) management, however, the decision-making process is complex because the decision has to be taken without any knowledge of future weather conditions. The objective of this paper is to present a general methodology for assessing yield variability linked to climatic uncertainty and variable N rate strategies. The STICS model was coupled with the LARS-Weather Generator. The Pearson system and coefficients were used to characterise the shape of yield distribution. Alternatives to classical statistical tests were proposed for assessing the normality of distributions and conducting comparisons (namely, the Jarque-Bera and Wilcoxon tests, respectively). Finally, the focus was put on the probability risk assessment, which remains a key point within the decision process. The simulation results showed that, based on current N application practice among Belgian farmers (60-60-60 kgN ha), yield distribution was very highly significantly non-normal, with the highest degree of asymmetry characterised by a skewness value of −1.02. They showed that this strategy gave the greatest probability (60 %) of achieving yields that were superior to the mean (10.5 t ha) of the distribution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Crop models of crop growth are increasingly used to quantify the impact of global changes due to climate or crop management. Therefore, accuracy of simulation results is a major concern. Studies with ensembles of crop models can give valuable information about model accuracy and uncertainty, but such studies are difficult to organize and have only recently begun. We report on the largest ensemble study to date, of 27 wheat models tested in four contrasting locations for their accuracy in simulating multiple crop growth and yield variables. The relative error averaged over models was 24-38% for the different end-of-season variables including grain yield ( GY) and grain protein concentration ( GPC). There was little relation between error of a model for GY or GPC and error for in-season variables. Thus, most models did not arrive at accurate simulations of GY and GPC by accurately simulating preceding growth dynamics. Ensemble simulations, taking either the mean (e-mean) or median (e-median) of simulated values, gave better estimates than any individual model when all variables were considered. Compared to individual models, e-median ranked first in simulating measured GY and third in GPC. The error of e-mean and e-median declined with an increasing number of ensemble members, with little decrease beyond 10 models. We conclude that multimodel ensembles can be used to create new estimators with improved accuracy and consistency in simulating growth dynamics. We argue that these results are applicable to other crop species, and hypothesize that they apply more generally to ecological system models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is an urgent need to transform unsustainable "linear" grain production systems in the United States (U.S.) and other countries like China, Brazil, Argentina, Canada, Russia, Australia and Europe, into more circular and sustainable systems to address the simultaneous challenges of resource depletion, environmental degradation, and the growing global demand for food under the threat of climate change. In this perspective, we survey the current state of circularity of U.S. grain production, and discuss how we can transform the systems into more circular systems. Specifically, we lay out a vision of circular grain production enabled by novel digital, mechanical, and biological technologies that allow closing loops of nutrient and energy flows within the farm, through the optimization of land-use choices and crop management. We also examine market- and policy-based mechanisms that could incentivize the widespread adoption of these key technologies. [Display omitted] • There is an urgent need to transform "linear" grain production systems into circular and sustainable systems • Digital agriculture technologies can increase circularity in the grain production systems • Regenerative practices, new genetics, robotics and electrification of fertilizer production will increase circularity • Widespread adoption of circular systems will depend critically on their profitability • Profitability will in turn depend on public policies needed to encourage farmers to adopt sustainable practices [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the new equipment capabilities, uneven crop stands are still common occurrences in crop fields, mainly due to spatial heterogeneity in soil conditions, seedling mortality due to herbivore predation and disease, or human error. Non-uniform plant stands may reduce grain yield in crops like maize. Thus, detecting signs of variability in crop stand density early in the season provides critical information for management decisions and crop yield forecasts. Processing techniques applied on images captured by unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) has been used successfully to identify crop rows and estimate stand density and, most recently, to estimate plant-to-plant interval distance. Here, we further test and apply an image processing algorithm on UAV images collected from yield-stability zones in a commercial crop field. Our objective was to implement the algorithm to compare variation of plant-spacing intervals to test whether yield differences within these zones are related to differences in crop stand characteristics. Our analysis indicates that the algorithm can be reliably used to estimate plant counts (precision >95% and recall >97%) and plant distance interval (R2 ~0.9 and relative error <10%). Analysis of the collected data indicated that plant spacing variability differences were small among plots with large yield differences, suggesting that it was not a major cause of yield variability across zones with distinct yield history. This analysis provides an example of how plant-detection algorithms can be applied to improve the understanding of patterns of spatial and temporal yield variability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Crop yield is affected by many factors, including the availability of water and nutrients and planting distribution. Models developed to predict yield based only on water use can be misleading due to the dominance of crop management factors. The ability of crop models to predict the impact of management strategies on yield is illustrated in this paper. Studies on water use efficiency (WUE) have primarily dealt with crops grown under water limited conditions and have usually not considered crop management factors other than irrigation. Improvements in crop management strategies, such as supplemental irrigation, proper fertilizer use, plant population and row-spacing, and new cultivars, attempt to minimize a crop exposure to soil water deficits. Under these circumstances, factors other than water supply can become limiting and production related to evaporation may not be a useful approach. Crop simulation models like CERES and SALUS have proven capability to provide reasonable estimates of each evaporation component as affected by management. Using simulated transpiration to estimate growth through transpiration efficiency, or simulated growth to estimate transpiration has major limitations when management influences yield and water supply is fixed or non-limiting. The microenvironment in sparse canopies strongly influences transpiration and soil evaporation due to large possible variations in sensible heat arising from variations in wetness of the soil surface. Crop growth is related to photosynthesis and plant development rates and is influenced primarily by intercepted photosynthetically active radiation whereas evaporation is influenced by a wider spectrum of energy. Factors related to management such as plant population and nutrient supply influences biomass production but has less influence on evaporation rates. Our analysis of published data and simulation studies indicates the use of simulated transpiration to estimate growth, or growth simulations to estimate transpiration is an unreasonable approach when management influences yield and water supply is fixed or not-limiting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Food insecurity in sub-Saharan Africa is partly due to low staple crop yields, resulting from poor soil fertility and low nutrient inputs. Integrated soil fertility management (ISFM), which includes the combined use of mineral and organic fertilizers, can contribute to increasing yields and sustaining soil organic carbon (SOC) in the long term. Soil-crop simulation models can help assess the performance and trade-offs of a range of crop management practices including ISFM, under current and future climate. Yet, uncertainty in model simulations can be high, resulting from poor model calibration and/or inadequate model structure. Multi-model simulations have been shown to be more robust than those with single models and help understand and reduce modelling uncertainty. In this study, we aim to perform the first multi-model comparison for long-term simulations of crop yield and SOC and their feedbacks in SSA. We evaluated the performance of 16 soil-crop models using data from four long-term maize experiments at sites in SSA with contrasting climates and soils. Each experiment had four treatments: i) no exogenous inputs, ii) addition of mineral nitrogen (N) fertilizer, iii) use of organic amendments, and iv) combined use of mineral and organic inputs. We assessed model performance in two steps: through blind calibration involving a minimum level of experimental data provided to the modeling teams, and subsequently through full calibration, which included a more extensive set of observational data. Model ensemble accuracy was greater with full calibration than blind calibration. Improvement in model accuracy was larger for maize yields (nRMSE 48 vs 18%) than for topsoil SOC (nRMSE 22 vs 14%). Model ensemble uncertainty (defined as the coefficient of variation across the 16 models) increased over the duration of the long-term experiments. Uncertainty of SOC simulations increased when organic amendments were used, whilst uncertainty of yield predictions was largest when no inputs were applied. Our study revealed large discrepancies among the models in simulating i) crop-to-soil feedbacks due to uncertainties in simulated carbon coming from roots, and ii) soil-to-crop feedbacks due to large uncertainties in simulated crop N supply from soil organic matter decomposition. These discrepancies were largest when organic amendments were applied. The results highlight the need for long-term experiments in which root and soil N dynamics are monitored. This will provide the corresponding data to improve and calibrate soil-crop models, which will lead to more robust and reliable simulations of SOC and crop productivity, and their interactions. • Multi-model assessment for long-term simulations of crop yield and soil carbon • Model ensemble uncertainty in simulating soil carbon increase with organic amendment • Model ensemble uncertainty in simulating yield increase in no-input treatments • Models largely differed in simulating root biomass and nitrogen mineralisation • More detailed experiments on soil crop feedback are needed to improve models [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• A large multi-model study predicting wheat phenology in Australia was performed. • Calibration and evaluation datasets were independently drawn from the same population. • Mean absolute prediction error ranged from 6 to 20 days (median 9 days). • Two thirds of modeling groups predicted better than a simple temperature sum. • Variability between groups using the same model structure was substantial. Predicting wheat phenology is important for cultivar selection, for effective crop management and provides a baseline for evaluating the effects of global change. Evaluating how well crop phenology can be predicted is therefore of major interest. Twenty-eight wheat modeling groups participated in this evaluation. Our target population was wheat fields in the major wheat growing regions of Australia under current climatic conditions and with current local management practices. The environments used for calibration and for evaluation were both sampled from this same target population. The calibration and evaluation environments had neither sites nor years in common, so this is a rigorous evaluation of the ability of modeling groups to predict phenology for new sites and weather conditions. Mean absolute error (MAE) for the evaluation environments, averaged over predictions of three phenological stages and over modeling groups, was 9 days, with a range from 6 to 20 days. Predictions using the multi-modeling group mean and median had prediction errors nearly as small as the best modeling group. About two thirds of the modeling groups performed better than a simple but relevant benchmark, which predicts phenology by assuming a constant temperature sum for each development stage. The added complexity of crop models beyond just the effect of temperature was thus justified in most cases. There was substantial variability between modeling groups using the same model structure, which implies that model improvement could be achieved not only by improving model structure, but also by improving parameter values, and in particular by improving calibration techniques. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• 27 modeling groups were evaluated for wheat phenology predictions for France. • Calibration and evaluation data were sampled from the same target population. • The calibration and evaluation data have neither year nor site in common. • The best groups had a mean absolute error comparable to the measurement error. • Model structure alone does not determine prediction accuracy. Predicting phenology is essential for adapting varieties to different environmental conditions and for crop management. Therefore, it is important to evaluate how well different crop modeling groups can predict phenology. Multiple evaluation studies have been previously published, but it is still difficult to generalize the findings from such studies since they often test some specific aspect of extrapolation to new conditions, or do not test on data that is truly independent of the data used for calibration. In this study, we analyzed the prediction of wheat phenology in Northern France under observed weather and current management, which is a problem of practical importance for wheat management. The results of 27 modeling groups are evaluated, where modeling group encompasses model structure, i.e. the model equations, the calibration method and the values of those parameters not affected by calibration. The data for calibration and evaluation are sampled from the same target population, thus extrapolation is limited. The calibration and evaluation data have neither year nor site in common, to guarantee rigorous evaluation of prediction for new weather and sites. The best modeling groups, and also the mean and median of the simulations, have a mean absolute error (MAE) of about 3 days, which is comparable to the measurement error. Almost all models do better than using average number of days or average sum of degree days to predict phenology. On the other hand, there are important differences between modeling groups, due to model structural differences and to differences between groups using the same model structure, which emphasizes that model structure alone does not completely determine prediction accuracy. In addition to providing information for our specific environments and varieties, these results are a useful contribution to a knowledge base of how well modeling groups can predict phenology, when provided with calibration data from the target population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]