Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:35:35.428Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Yield mapping at different scales to improve fertilizer decision making in the Australian sugar industry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2017

R. G. V. Bramley ,
J. Ouzman  and
D. L. Gobbett
R. G. V. Bramley*
Affiliation:
CSIRO, Waite Campus, PMB 2, Glen Osmond, SA 5064, Australia
J. Ouzman
Affiliation:
CSIRO, Waite Campus, PMB 2, Glen Osmond, SA 5064, Australia
D. L. Gobbett
Affiliation:
CSIRO, Waite Campus, PMB 2, Glen Osmond, SA 5064, Australia
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Potential yield is one of the criteria used as an input to nitrogen (N) fertilizer management decisions when using SIX EASY STEPS (6ES), the fertilizer recommendation tool used in the Australian sugar industry. Most commonly, 6ES is implemented using a district yield potential (DYP). In this study, we use analysis of sugar mill and yield monitor data from the Herbert River cane growing district to demonstrate that yield is markedly spatially variable, with this variability following the same patterns from year to year. There would therefore be value in a more location specific consideration of potential yield and application of 6ES. Similar analyses could be readily conducted in other sugar producing regions with potentially important implications for fertilizer use efficiency and the minimization of nutrient accessions to the Great Barrier Reef.

Keywords

sugarcaneyield potentialscalenutrient use efficiencyGreat Barrier Reef
Type
Information and Decision Support Systems
Information
Advances in Animal Biosciences , Volume 8 , Special Issue 2: Papers presented at the 11th European Conference on Precision Agriculture (ECPA 2017), John McIntyre Centre, Edinburgh, UK, July 16–20 2017 , July 2017 , pp. 630 - 634
Copyright
© CSIRO Australia 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bell, MJ (Ed) 2015. A review of nitrogen use efficiency in sugarcane. Sugar Research Australia, Brisbane. http://elibrary.sugarresearch.com.au/bitstream/handle/11079/14733/A review of nitrogen use efficiency in sugarcane.pdf?sequence=1 (Accessed November 2016).Google Scholar
Bramley, RGV and Jensen, TA 2013. Sugarcane yield monitoring: a protocol for yield map interpolation and key considerations in the collection of yield data. International Sugar Journal 116, 370–379.Google Scholar
Bramley, RGV and Quabba, RP 2002. Opportunities for improving the management of sugarcane production through the adoption of precision agriculture – An Australian perspective. International Sugar Journal 104, 152–161.Google Scholar
Bramley, RGV, Jensen, TA, Webster, AJ and Robson, AJ 2017a. Precision Agriculture and sugarcane production – A case study from the Burdekin region of Australia. Chapter 15 in Achieving sustainable cultivation of sugarcane, edited by PC Rott, Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing, Cambridge, England. In press.Google Scholar
Bramley, R, Ouzman, J and Gobbett, D 2017b. Is district yield potential an appropriate concept for fertilizer decision making? Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 39. In press.Google Scholar
Johnson, RM and Richard, EP 2005. Sugarcane yield, sugarcane quality, and soil variability in Louisiana. Agronomy Journal 97, 760–771.Google Scholar
Minasny, B, McBratney, AB and Whelan, BM 2005. VESPER version 1.62. Australian Centre for Precision Agriculture, University of Sydney: Sydney, NSW, Australia. www.sydney.edu.au/agriculture/pal/software/vesper.shtml (Accessed November 2016).Google Scholar
Robson, A, Abbott, C, Lamb, D and Bramley, R 2012. Developing sugar cane yield prediction algorithms from satellite imagery. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 34. Electronic format. 11 pp.Google Scholar
Robson, A, Rahman, MM, Falzon, G, Verma, NK, Ohansen, KJ, Robinson, N, Lakshmanan, P, Salter, B and Skocaj, D 2016. Evaluating remote sensing technologies for improved yield forecasting and for the measurement of foliar nitrogen concentration in sugarcane. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 38, 89–100.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, FA Jr, Magalhães, PSG, Franco, HCJ, de Beauclair, EGF and Cerri, DGP 2013. Correlation between chemical soil attributes and sugarcane quality parameters according to soil texture zones. Soil Science 178, 147–156.Google Scholar
Schroeder, BL 2009. Technical information supporting aspects of the ‘SIX EASY STEPS’ nutrient management package. Report No. CO09020. BSES Ltd, Indooroopilly. www.qld.gov.au/environment/assets/documents/agriculture/sustainable-farming/reef/technical-information.pdf (Accessed July 2016).Google Scholar
Schroeder, BL, Hurney, AP, Wood, AW, Moody, PW and Allsopp, PG 2010. Concepts and value of the nitrogen guidelines contained within the Australian sugar industry’s ‘SIX EASY STEPS’ nutrient management program. Proceedings of the International Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 27, (CD-ROM).Google Scholar
Schroeder, BL, Wood, AW, Moody, PW, Bell, MJ and Garside, AL 2005. Nitrogen fertiliser guidelines in perspective. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 27, 291–304.Google Scholar
Thorburn, PJ and Wilkinson, SN 2013. Conceptual frameworks for estimating the water quality benefits of improved agricultural management practices in large catchments. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 180, 192–209.Google Scholar
Webster, T, Bramley, R and Jensen, T 2016. Spatial analysis of the relationship between Nitrogen surplus and yield in sugarcane. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 38, 81–88.Google Scholar