Nitrogen Management · Always supplied enough N through sd. Sela et al. 2019, Towards applying N...
Transcript of Nitrogen Management · Always supplied enough N through sd. Sela et al. 2019, Towards applying N...
Nitrogen Managementwith Adapt-N
The Soil Health Context
Harold van Es
ESTIMATING OPTIMUM NITROGEN RATE IS CHALLENGING
• Many sources of N• Many loss pathways• Highly dynamic interactive system with uncertainties
• Highly influenced by production environments: weather, soil, and management
Precise N rate recommendations are critical due to asymmetric
producer risk
N Rate
Ris
k
Risk = Probability*Cost
EONR(uncertain)
Risk of yield lossRisk of excessfertilizer
Addressing the new reality……
• Climate change creates more weather extremes• New management practices create more diverse production environments (soil health, OM inputs, etc.)
• New technologies provide opportunities for implementation of 4R+ (stabilizers, new applicators, etc.)
• Traditional guidelines cannot adequately address all needs in nutrient management and don’t account for dynamic processes
Regional Increases in Very Heavy Precipitation Events (1958-2007)
Globalchange.gov
http://www.nutrientstewardship.com/4rs/
The 4R’s of nutrient management
Out of the 4R’s, the answer to the right N rate is probably the most challenging due to the dynamic nature of N in the soil
4R+: 4Rs and soil health
Source, Timing, and Placement
Greatly affects loss potential• Fertilizer formulation (esp. ammonia fraction)• Incorporation big factor• Use of enhanced efficiency products
• Reduces losses• Allows for lower N rates
• Timing relative to rainfall
N Supply and Uptake by Corn(base graph by Bender et al., 2013)
Cumulative Soil N Supply
(base graph by Bender et al., 2013)
230 bu/ac corn
N Supply and Uptake by Corn(base graph by Bender et al., 2013)
Cumulative Soil N Supply
(base graph by Bender et al., 2013)
Adapt-N Recommendations2015 vs. 2012 (Iowa)
201519” rain
2015 (19” rain): 1379 lbs/ac field total
2012 (4” rain): 790 lbs/ac field total
N Supply and Uptake by Corn(base graph by Bender et al., 2013)
Cumulative Soil N Supply
fertilize
(base graph by Bender et al., 2013)
Soil N Supply
Single application with N loss risk
(base graph by Bender et al., 2013)
dry
wet
N Supply and Uptake by Corn(base graph by Bender et al., 2013)
In-Season Application Is Increasingly Adopted
Source: 360 Y-Drop
Resources
• Soil type• Soil health• Climate
• Precipitation• Temperature• Solar
radiation
• Cultivar• Crop rotations • Cover crops• Tillage• Irrigation and
drainage
Management Weather
Nutrient:• Source• Placement• Timing
3R’s
Dynamic-Adaptive N Rate EstimationProduction Environment Factors
Dynamic Interactions
Approach Strengths Weaknesses
Static
Yield Goal “logical”; simple to use; no cost Highly generalized; discounts
important factors; narrow management environment; not 4R or SH compatible
Empirical/MRTN experimental; simple to use; includes economic factors; no cost
Dynamic-Adaptive
Soil/tissue tests PSNT-LSNT, ear leaf, etc.
Direct measure on crop N availability; field check for N sufficiency
High labor cost; lack of time integration and modest predictability; 4R-SH compatible
Canopy sensorsYara N-Sensor,Greenseeker, OptRx
high site-specificity; equipment integration
Equipment investment; reference strips; no a-priori info; sensor constraints; relationship w/ EONR; 4R-SH compatible
Models and weather data Adapt-N, FieldView, Encirca, Farmer’s Edge
Process-based; space-time specific; in-season monitoring; low cost
Input data needed; data constraints; fees; 4R-SH compatible
General N Recommendation Approaches for Corn
Yield Goal Based Method
Generally following Stanford’s (1973) ideas:
Nrate = (Nyield– Nsoil) / Ef
e.g., for New York:Nrate = ((Yieldpotential * 1.2) – Nsoil) / Ef
Nafziger, 2006
Empirical/MRTN Approach
Morris et al., 2018
Price ratio impactMean N response
N Recommendation Systems in the US
From: Morris et al., 2018
A few states have guidelines around other technologies, e.g., sensor algorithms
Adapt-N• A Decision Support Tool to manage N• Cloud-based and highly scalable• Estimating N dynamics and crop needs in
complex production environments
Effectively addresses multiple concerns: • Farmer profitability• water quality • greenhouse gases, NH3 emissions• energy
Basically….What does Adapt-N do?
• It makes soil-crop simulations based on daily time step
• It simulates water and nitrogen dynamics in the soil (soil, management, weather, etc.)
• It simulates corn growth (soil, management, weather)
• Soil and crop models interact• It estimates supplemental N needs• It develops support information and graphs
Sela and van Es (2018), JSWC
Factors effecting the right N rate
Process based modelling
DisclosureAccording to Cornell University policy, I am disclosing that this tool was developed as part of our Cornell research program, and that Agronomic Technology Corporation (now YaraInternational ASA) received a license for the use and further development of the Adapt-N tool, and has in part sponsored associated research efforts. Conflicts of interests are managed per Cornell University policy
Features and Inputs for Adapt-N
Feature ApproachSimulation time scale
Daily time-step. Historical climate data for post-date estimates
Optimum N rate estimation
Mass balance: deterministic (pre) and stochastic (post) withgrain-fertilizer price ratio and risk factors
Weather inputs Near-real time: Solar radiation; max-min temperature;precipitation
Soil inputs Soil type or series related to NRCS database properties; rootingdepth; slope; soil organic content; artificial drainage
Crop inputs Cultivar; maturity class; population; expected yield; crop priceManagement inputs
Tillage (type, time, residue level); irrigation (amount, date);manure applications (type, N & solid contents, rate, timing,incorporation method); previous crop characteristics; covercrop
N Fertilizer inputs Multiple: Type, rate, time of application, placement depth;fertilizer price; enhanced efficiency compounds (inhibitors,slow-release)
Real-time inputs Date of emergence, soil nitrate test results
High Resolution Climate Data (4x4 km)Critical Input to Adapt-N Tool
• Gridded high-resolution climate data (Tmx, Tmin, Precip, solar radiaton), which are dynamically accessed from the NE Regional Climate Center.
• The database is derived from routines using the US National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration's Rapid Update Cycle weather model (temperature) and operational Doppler radars (precipitation).
• Observed weather station data are used to correct NOAA estimates and generate spatially interpreted grids (DeGaetano and Belcher, 2007; DeGaetano and Wilks, 2009).
Adapt-N: Nitrogen Recommendations
How much N needed
Breakdown of recs
25
Key Value: Proven to improve financial and environmental performance
N Recommendation Methodology:Time integration through deterministic-
stochastic mass balance equation
SidedressNrate = CropNHarvest - CropNCurrent - SoilNCurrent - SoilNpostsidedress -
SoybeanNcredit + NLosspostapplication - Correctprofit
Estimated processes based on stochastic simulations
Input: Expected Yield
Near-Real-Time Simulation based on past (early-season) events
simulated & partial fixed credit
Details and Transparency
Graphical Insights
Export tools
Recs can be exported back to a source system or downloaded as a Shapefile.
Custom Fertilizers can be used, rates be adjusted, units can be rounded,
products can be mixed on the fly. Foliar products supported.
Email & Text Alerts for Tracking
Adapt-N and Soil Health Inputsaccounting for soil health in N recommendations
•Organic Matter•Rotation•Manure•Cover Crops
Tillage and Organic Matterplacement of residuemineralizationC and N pools
Cover CropsInputs for Adapt-N
Cover Crops
Cover crop type:
grass legume mix:mostly grass
mix: 50-50
mix: mostly legume
Stage at termination:
Tillering/early vegetative
stem elongation/midvegetative
boot-head/bud-flower
anthesis
Termination date:
Calendar date
Incorporation: none light full
Inputs for Adapt-N related to • biomass and C:N ratio• Placement and timing
Manure• quantity and quality• placement and timing
Rotation• biomass and C:N ratio• placement
YieldAn important part of N Management
• Important input for mass-balance models, including dynamic adaptive tools
• Affected by soil health• Yield maps provide spatially specific zones• Unknown yield potential?• Yield and N use efficiency are related
Source: EFC-AgSolver
Adapt-N History• 1980’s through early 2000’s: field research and initial
software development (Hutson, Wagenet, Sinclair Addiscott, van Es, et al.)
• 2003-2008: Adapt-N development (Melkonian, DeGaetano, van Es)
• 2008-2013: Adapt-N prototype tool available as free web interface, supported by grant funding
• 2011-current: extensive on-farm trials and model refinements:
• 2013-current: Adapt-N licensed and commercialized through Agronomic Technology Corp, now part of YaraInternational, ASA.
Model Development and Testing
Field data
Calibration
Validation
Independent evaluationon commercial farms
17 peer-reviewed publications
Modeling
Willsboro Research Farm
LEACHM Model Calibration and ValidationNitrate-N leaching from fertilizer
Sogbedji et al., 2001b, c
Manure Calibration and Validation:Soil Type and Timing
Sogbedji et al., 2006
Adapt-N on-farm test locations
125 field trials where dynamic and static N rates compared (2011-2016) Sela et al. (2018), ERL
NY IA
Results – applied N rates
In 83% of all 113 trials the Adapt-N tool recommended lower N application than the respective Grower rate, an average reduction of
40 lbs/ac (34%)
Sela et al. 2016 , Agronomy Journal
Results – measured yield
Sela et al. 2016 , Agronomy Journal
Diff = +1 bu/ac (ns)
34% additional N applied by the
farmers is in excess
Adapt–N vs Grower
Analysis by Dr. Jim Schepers for NutrientStar
Higher rates (17%) mostly justified by higher yieldsLower rates (83%) did not result in yield losses
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100Dif
fere
nce
in Y
ield
(b
u/A
)
Difference in N Rate (lb/A)
Simulated environmental losses
An average reduction of 13 lbs/ac (36%) in simulated leaching losses
An average reduction of 12 lbs/ac (39%) in simulated gaseous losses
Sela et al. 2016 , Agronomy Journal
Comparison with Economic Optimum RateCornell N Calculator
CNC default yield-based CNC realistic yield-based
avg N rate 76 lbs/ac above the OptimumRMSE = 67 lbs/ac
avg N rate 42 lbs/ac below the OptimumRMSE = 50 lbs/ac
Sela et al. 2017, Journal of Environmental Quality
Adapt-Navg N rate 6 lbs/ac below the Optimum Rate
RMSE = 30 lbs/ac
Sela et al. 2017, Journal of Environmental Quality
Comparison with Economic Optimum Rate
Leaching Losses: [NO3-N] in drain waterAdapt-N vs. Cornell N Calculator (realistic yields)
Willsboro lysimeter plots 14 sampling dates in 2014-2017 (n=448)
van Es et al., 2019
Clay LoamCNC (realistic yield) 9.7 mg/LAdapt-N 6.7 mg/L
(-31%)
Loamy SandCNC (realistic yield) 19.2 mg/LAdapt-N 12.4 mg/L
(-35%)
Future Directions?
• More in-season management• Ensemble approaches
• Models• Sensors• AI
• Industry and supply-chain incentives • performance standards (N Balance)
Atfarm AppYara International, ASA
Conclusions
• N is a dynamic nutrient• Many sources of N (organic, inorganic, etc.), some
affected by soil health management• Production environments are very diverse• New equipment offers management opportunities• Models and data improve N recommendations• Adapt-N accounts for soil health practices• Adapt-N is well tested and has known performance
What are achievable N balance targets in the US Midwest?
5 states : NE, IA, MN, IL, IN
5 locations in each state
3 types of soil texture: Sandy loam, Loam, Silty clay loam
7 seasons: 2010-2016
3 timings of N application – Fall, Spring, split
With or without nitrapyrin
Always supplied enough N through sd
Sela et al. 2019, Towards applying N balance as a sustainability indicator for the US cornbelt: realistic achievable targets, spatio-temporal variability and policy implications, ERL.
N Balance = Ninput – N output
Sela et al. 2019, Towards applying N balance as a sustainability indicator for the US cornbelt: realistic achievable targets, spatio-temporal variability and policy implications, ERL.
Applying N in better synchronization with crop N uptake substantially reduces N balance and N losses
78 kg/ha sustainable production threshold (Zhang et al. 2015)
Sela et al. 2018, ERL, Under review
Meeting Environmental TargetsTiming of Application and +/- Use of Nitrapyrin
Loam - Illinois
78 kg (Zhang et al., 2015)
PublicationsOn-Farm EvaluationSela,S., H.M. van Es, B.N. Moebius-Clune, S. R. Marjerison, J.J. Melkonian, D. Moebius-
Clune, R. Schindelbeck, and S. Gomes. 2016. Model-based N management increases Midwest maize production sustainability while enhancing economic returns. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture (accepted).
*Sela, S., H.M. van Es, B.N. Moebius-Clune, R. Marjerison, D. Moebius-Clune, R. Schindelbeck, K. Severson, E. Young. 2017. Dynamic model improves agronomic and environmental outcomes for corn N management over static approaches. J. Environm. Qual. 46(2):311-319.
*Sela,S., H.M. van Es, B.N. Moebius-Clune, S. R. Marjerison, J.J. Melkonian, D. Moebius-Clune, R. Schindelbeck, and S. Gomes. 2016. Adapt-N Outperforms Grower-Selected Nitrogen Rates in Northeast and Midwest USA Strip Trials. Agonomy J. 108: 4: 1726-1734.
Ristow, A., S. Sela, M. Davis, L. Fennell, H. van Es. 2016. Water Quality Impacts Reduced with Adapt-N Recommendations. What's Cropping Up? Vol. 26 No.2. (pre-publication; not peer-reviewed)
Moebius-Clune, B.N., H.M. van Es, and J.J. Melkonian. 2013. Adapt-N Uses Models and Weather Data to Improve Nitrogen Management for Corn. Better Crops with Plant Food. 2013 (4) 7-9.
PublicationsDevelopment, Calibration and Supportive Field Research• Marjerison, R.D. J. Melkonian, J.L. Hutson, H. M. van Es, S.Sela, L.D. Geohring, J. Vetsch. 2016. Drainage and nitrate leaching from artificially
drained maize fields simulated by the Precision Nitrogen Management model. J.Environm. Qual. 45:2044–2052 (2016).• Graham, C.J., H.M. van Es, J.J. Melkonian, and D.A. Laird. 2010. Improved nitrogen and energy use efficiency using NIR estimated soil
organic carbon and N simulation modeling. In: D.A. Clay and J. Shanahan. GIS Applications in Agriculture – Nutrient Management for Improved Energy Efficiency. pp 301-325, Taylor and Francis, LLC.
• Melkonian, J. L.D. Geohring, H.M. van Es, P.E. Wright, T.S. Steenhuis and C. Graham. 2010. Subsurface drainage discharges following manure application: Measurements and model analyses. Proc. XVIIth World Congress of the Intern. Commission of Agric. Engineering, Quebec City, Canada.
• Melkonian, J.J., H.M. van Es, A.T. DeGaetano, and L. Joseph. 2008. ADAPT-N: Adaptive nitrogen management for maize using high-resolution climate data and model simulations. In: R. Khosla, editor, Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Precision Agriculture. Denver, CO (CD-ROM).
• DeGaetano, A.T., and B.N. Belcher. 2007. Spatial interpolation of daily maximum and minimum air temperature based on meteorological model analyses and independent observations. J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol. 46(11): 1981–1992
• DeGaetano, A.T., and D.S. Wilks. 2009. Radar-guided interpolation of climatological precipitation data. Int. J. Climatol. 29(2): 185–196• van Es, H.M., B.D. Kay, J.J. Melkonian, and J.M. Sogbedji. 2007. Nitrogen Management under Maize in Humid Regions: Case for a Dynamic
Approach. In: T. Bruulsema (ed.) Managing Crop Nutrition for Weather. Intern. Plant Nutrition Institute Publ. pp. 6-13.• Melkonian, J., H.M. van Es, A.T. DeGaetano, J.M.Sogbedji, and L. Joseph. 2007. Application of Dynamic Simulation Modeling for Nitrogen
Management in Maize. In: T. Bruulsema (ed.) Managing Crop Nutrition for Weather. Intern. Plant Nutrition Institute Publ. pp. 14-22.• Sogbedji, J.M., H.M. van Es, J.M. Melkonian, and R.R. Schindelbeck. 2006. Evaluation of the PNM model for simulating drain flow nitrate-N
concentrations under manure-fertilized maize. Plant and Soil 282: 343-360• van Es, H.M., J.M. Sogbedji, and R.R. Schindelbeck. 2006. Nitrate Leaching under Maize and Grass as Affected by Manure Application Timing
and Soil Type. J. Environmental Quality 35:670-679.• van Es, H.M, C.L. Yang, and L.D. Geohring. 2005. Maize nitrogen response as affected by drainage variability and soil type. Precision
Agriculture 6:281-295.• Kahabka, J.E., H.M. van Es, E.J. McClenahan, and W.J. Cox. 2004. Spatial analysis of maize response to N fertilizer in Central New York. Precision
Agriculture 5:463-476.• Sogbedji, J.M., H.M. van Es, J.L. Hutson, and L.D. Geohring. 2001. Fate of N fertilizer and green manure in clay loam and loamy sand soils: I
Calibration of the LEACHM model. Plant and Soil 229(1): 57-70.• Sogbedji, J.M., and H.M. van Es, J.L. Hutson, and L.D. Geohring. 2001. N rate and transport under variable cropping history and fertilizer rate
on loamy sand and clay loam soils: II. Performance of LEACHMN using different calibration scenarios. Plant and Soil 229(1): 71-82 • Sogbedji, J.M., H.M. van Es, S.D. Klausner, D.R. Bouldin, and W.J. Cox. 2001. Spatial and temporal processes affecting nitrogen availability at
the landscape scale. Soil & Tillage. Research 58 (3-4) 233-244.• Sogbedji, J.M., H.M. van Es, C.L. Yang, L.D. Geohring, and F.R. Magdoff. 2000. Nitrate leaching and N budget as affected by maize N fertilizer
rate and soil type. J. Environm. Qual. 29:1813-1820.