Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-20T18:18:09.826Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mapping within-field biomass variability: a remote sensing-based approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2017

I. Campos ,
L. González ,
J. Villodre ,
M. Calera ,
J. Campoy ,
N. Jiménez ,
C. Plaza  and
A. Calera
I. Campos*
Affiliation:
GIS and Remote Sensing Group, Instituto de Desarrollo Regional, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Campus Universitario SN, Albacete, Spain AGRISAT, Pol, Campollano, Av, 1ª N 18, Albacete, Spain
L. González
Affiliation:
GIS and Remote Sensing Group, Instituto de Desarrollo Regional, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Campus Universitario SN, Albacete, Spain
J. Villodre
Affiliation:
GIS and Remote Sensing Group, Instituto de Desarrollo Regional, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Campus Universitario SN, Albacete, Spain
M. Calera
Affiliation:
ALIARA, C/Matadero 11, Talavera de la Reina, Spain
J. Campoy
Affiliation:
AGRISAT, Pol, Campollano, Av, 1ª N 18, Albacete, Spain
N. Jiménez
Affiliation:
ALIARA, C/Matadero 11, Talavera de la Reina, Spain
C. Plaza
Affiliation:
ALIARA, C/Matadero 11, Talavera de la Reina, Spain
A. Calera
Affiliation:
GIS and Remote Sensing Group, Instituto de Desarrollo Regional, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Campus Universitario SN, Albacete, Spain
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Biomass production is a diagnosis tool for the evaluation of the effect of climate, crop genomic and management. The differences in biomass accumulation are necessary for the assessment of the fertilization necessities in the strategies for variable nitrogen doses. Remote sensing-based data provide a direct observation of the differences in canopy development across time and space and can be integrated into the physiological basis of crop growth models to provide estimates of biomass production at fine scales. The proposed approach was applied in a wheat field in Albacete, Spain and the results were compared with measurements of aboveground biomass and yield maps obtained by a combined-mounted grain yield monitor.

Keywords

NDVIcrop coefficientwater use efficiencyAQUACROP
Type
Precision Pasture
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. 764 - 769
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 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

Aase, JK and Siddoway, FH 1981. Assessing winter wheat dry matter production via spectral reflectance measurements. Remote Sensing of Environment 11, 267–277.Google Scholar
Allen, RG, Raes, D and Smith, M 1998. Crop evapotranspiration: Guidelines for computing crop requirements. Irrigationa nd Drainage Paper N° 56. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Arslan, S and Colvin, TS 2002. Grain yield mapping: Yield sensing, yield reconstruction, and errors. Precision Agriculture 3, 135–154.Google Scholar
Choudhury, BJ, Ahmed, NU, Idso, SB, Reginato, RJ and Daughtry, CS 1994. Relations between evaporation coefficients and vegetation indices studied by model simulations. Remote Sensing of Environment 50, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalla Marta, A, Grifoni, D, Mancini, M, Orlando, F, Guasconi, F and Orlandini, S 2015. Durum wheat in-field monitoring and early-yield prediction: assessment of potential use of high resolution satellite imagery in a hilly area of Tuscany, Central Italy. The Journal of Agricultural Science 153, 68–77.Google Scholar
Dang, YP, Pringle, MJ, Schmidt, M, Dalal, RC and Apan, A 2011. Identifying the spatial variability of soil constraints using multi-year remote sensing. Field Crop Research 123, 248–258.Google Scholar
Fischer, RA 1993. Irrigated spring wheat and timing and amount of nitrogen fertilizer. II. Physiology of grain yield response. Field Crop Research 33, 57–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonzalez, L, Calera, M, Villodre, J, Bodas, V, Campos, I and Calera, A 2015. Secuencias temporales de imágenes y datos meteorológicos para caracterizar variabilidad en parcelas de trigo y maíz (Temporal sequences of satellite images and meteorological data to characterize the spatial variability in wheat and maize fields). XVI Congreso de la Asociación Española de Teledetección Sevilla, Spain.Google Scholar
Jamieson, P, Porter, J, Goudriaan, J, Ritchie, J, Van Keulen, D and Stol, W 1998. A comparison of the models AFRCWHEAT2, CERES-Wheat, Sirius, SUCROS2 and SWHEAT with measurements from wheat grown under drought. Field Crop Research 55, 23–44.Google Scholar
Lobell, DB, Ortiz-Monasterio, JI, Sibley, AM and Sohu, VS 2013. Satellite detection of earlier wheat sowing in India and implications for yield trends. Agricultural Systems 115, 137–143.Google Scholar
Longnecker, N, Kirby, EJM and Robson, A 1993. Leaf emergence, tiller growth, and apical development of nitrogen-dificient spring wheat. Crop Science 33, 154–160.Google Scholar
Padilla, FLM, Maas, SJ, González-Dugo, MP, Mansilla, F, Rajan, N, Gavilán, P and Domínguez, J 2012. Monitoring regional wheat yield in Southern Spain using the GRAMI model and satellite imagery. Field Crop Research 130, 145–154.Google Scholar
Pantazi, XE, Moshou, D, Alexandridis, D, Whetton, RL and Mouazen, AM 2016. Wheat yield prediction using machine learning and advanced sensing techniques. Computer and Electronics in Agriculture 121, 57–65.Google Scholar
Raes, D, Steduto, P, Hsiao, TC and Fereresd, E 2009. AquaCrop—The FAO crop model to simulate yield response to water: II. Main algorithms and software description. Agronomy Journal 101, 438–447.Google Scholar
Sadras, VO and Connor, DJ 1991. Physiological basis of the response of harvest index to the fraction of water transpired after anthesis: A simple model to estimate harvest index for determinate species. Field Crop Research 26, 227–239.Google Scholar
Sibley, AM, Grassini, P, Thomas, NE, Cassman, KG and Lobell, D 2014. Testing remote sensing approaches for assessing yield variability among maize fields. Agronomy Journal 106, 24–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siddique, K, Tennant, D, Perry, M and Belford, R 1990. Water use and water use efficiency of old and modern wheat cultivars in a Mediterranean-type environment. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 41, 431–447.Google Scholar
Steduto, P, Hsiao, TC, Fereres, E and Raes, D 2012. Crop yield response to water, Irrigation and drainage paper N° 66. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar