USING REMOTE SENSING AND SOIL PHYSICAL PROPERTIES FOR PREDICTING THE SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF COTTON LINT YIELD

This field crop research study addresses the potential of image based remote sensing to provide spatially and temporally distributed information on timely basis for site-specific cotton crop management. Universal applicability of site specific crop management is hampered by lack of timely distributed and economically feasible information on soils and crop conditions in the field and their interaction. The objectives of this study were to demonstrate (1) how site-specific lint yield and associated soil physical properties in a cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) production field are related to changes in NDVI across the growing season, and (2) when multispectral images should be collected to optimize the cost and efficiency of remote sensing as a tool for site-specific management of the cotton crop. Temporal multispectral images data acquired comprised 10 dates (1998) and 17 dates (1999) during growing seasons, respectively with analysis focused on 24 areas of interest (AOI) (each 2 x 8 m) located in two transects on a 162-ha farm field. Along each transect, soil textural classification ranged from sandy loam to silt loam. At an early growth stage [~300-600 degree days (DDs) after emergence], low NDVI and plant density were associated with soils having low saturated hydraulic conductivity (ks) and characterized as drainage ways. Among the AOI’s, maximal NDVI was reached at approximately 1565 DD in 1998 and 1350 DD in 1999. A strong range of Pearson correlation (r2=0.65 – 0.83) between lint yield and NDVI during flowering stage (~800-1500 DDs) supports the utility of NDVI maps for site-specific application. However, values for NDVI did not correlate well with lint yields beyond 1500 DDs [fruit (boll) opening stage] and decreased sharply on sites with sandy soil texture. Visual separation of seasonal trends in the NDVI vs. DD relationship was also related to sandy soil vs. silt loam soil texture and seasonal rainfall difference between years. Based on the statistical relationship between NDVI vs. DD it was concluded that acquisition of a single imagery during peak bloom period would be sufficient for predicting the spatial distribution of lint yield and will also be economically feasible. Results of this study indicate that spatial variability in soil physical properties induced variability in crop growth and yield. Similar methodology could be adopted for site-specific management of other crops

PDF

___

Basso, B., Fiorentino, C., Canımarano, D., Cafiero, G., Dardanelli, J., 2012. Analysis of rainfall distribution on spatial and temporal patterns of wheat yield in Mediterranean environment. Eur Agron 41: 52—65.
Boken, V. K., Shaykewich, C. F., 2005. Improving an operational wheat yield model using phenological phase— based normalized difference vegetation index. Int. J. Remote Sens. 26: 3877—3897.
Bronson, K. F., Booker, J. D., Keeling, J.W., Boman, R. K.,
Wheeler, T. A., Lascano, R. J., Nichols, R.L., 2005. Cotton canopy reflectance at landscape scale as affected by nitrogen fertilization. Agron. J. 97: 654—660.
Duchemin, B., Hadria, R., Erraki, S., Boulet, G., Maisongrande, P., Chehbouni, A., Escadafal, R., Ezzahar, J., Hoedjes, J. C.
B., Kharrou, M. H., 2006. Monitoring wheat phenology and irrigation in Central Morocco: On the use of relationships between evapotranspiration, crops coefficients, leaf area index and remotely—sensed vegetation indices. Agric. Water Manag. 79: 1—27.
ERDAS, 1997. ERDAS Imagine, Ver. 8.5. Atlanta, GA, USA. ESRI, 1998. ArcViewGIS, Ver. 3.2. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redland, CA, USA.
Flowers, M., Weisz, R., Heiniger, R., 2001. Remote sensing of winter wheat tiller density for early nitrogen application decisions. Agron. J. 93: 783—789.
Gee, G. W., Bauder, J. W., 1986. Particle size analysis. In: A. Klute (Ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1, 2nd ed. Agron. Monogr. 9, ASA, Madison, WI, pp.383—409.
Guérif, M., and CL. Duke, 2000. Adjustment procedures of crop model to the site specific characteristics of soil and crop using remote sensing data assimilation Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 81: 57—69.
Hatfield, J.L., Gitelson, A.A., Schepers, J.S., Walthall, CL., 2008. Application of spectral remote sensing for agronomic decisions. Agron. J. 100: 117—131.
Hochman, Z., Carberry, P.S., Robertson, M.J., Gaydon, D.S., Bell, L.W., McIntosh, PC., 2013. Prospects for ecological intensification of Australian agriculture. Eur Agron 44: 109—123.
Iqbal, J., Thomasson, J. A., Jenkins, J. N., Owens, P. R., Whisler, F. D., 2005. Spatial variability analysis of soil physical properties of alluvial soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 69: 1338—1350.
Jury, W. A., Gardner, W. R., Gardner, W. H., 1991. Soil physics. 5th ed. John Wiley Sons, New York.
Kastens, J. H., Kastens T. L., Kastens, D. L. A., Price, K. P., Martinko E. A., Lee, R., 2005. Image masking for crop yield forecasting using AVHRR NDVI time series imagery. Remote Sens. Environ. 99: 341—356.
Klute, A. 1986. Water retention: Laboratory methods. In: A. Klute (Ed), Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1, 2nd ed. Agron. Monogr. 9, ASA, Madison, WI, pp. 635—660.
Klute, A., Dirksen, C., 1986. Hydraulic conductivity and diffusivity: Laboratory methods. In: A. Klute (Editor), Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1, 2nd ed. Agron. Monogr. 9, ASA, Madison, WI, pp. 687—732.
Li, H., Lascano, R. J., Barnes, E. M., Booker, J., Wilson, L. T., Bronson, K. F., Segarra, E., 2001. Multispectral reflectance of cotton related to plant growth, soil water and texture, and site elevation. Agron. J. 93: 1327—1337.
Lofton, ., Tubana, B.S., Kanke, Y., Teboh, J., Viator, H., Dalen, M., 2012. Estimating Sugarcane Yield Potential Using an In— Season Determination of Normalized Difference Vegetative Index. Sensors—Basel 12: 7529—7547.
Plant, R. E., Munk, D. S., Roberts, B. R., Vargas, R. L., Rains, D. W., Travis, R. L., and Hutmacher, R. B., 2000.
Relationships between remotely sensed reflectance data and cotton growth and yield. Trans. ASAE, 43: 535—546.
Reddy, K. R., Hodges, H. F. McKinion, J. M., 1993.
temperature model for cotton phenology. Biotronics, 2:47— 59.
Ritchie, G. L., Bednarz, C. W., 2005. Estimating defoliation of two distinct cotton types using reflectance. J. Cotton Sci. 9: 182—189.
Rabenhorst, M.C., 1988. Determination of organic carbon and carbonate carbon in calcareous soils using dry combustion. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 52: 965—969.
Shaver, T.M., Khosla, R., Westfall, D.G., 2011. Evaluation of two crop canopy sensors for nitrogen variability determination in irrigated maize. Precis Agric 12: 892—904.
Turner, N.C., Hearn, A.B., Begg, J.E., Constable, G.A., 1986.
Cotton (Gossypium—Hirsutum—L) Physiological and Morphological Responses to Water Deficits and Their Relationship to Yield. Field Crop Res 14: 153—170.
USDA—NRCS, 1951. Bolivar County Mississippi. USDA— Natural Resources Conservation Service Publication Number 5, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, USA. Online http ://websoilsurvey.nrcs .usda. gov/app/HomePage.htm. Accessed 27 September 2011.
Wall, L., Larocque, D., Leger, P. M., 2008. The early explanatory power of NDVI in crop yield modeling. Int. J. Remote Sens. 29: 2211—2225.
Wiegand, C. L., Richardson, A. J., Escobar, D. E., Gerbermann, A. H., 1991. Vegetation indices in crop assessments. Remote Sens. Environ. 35: 105—119.
Winterhalter, L., Mistele, B., Jampatong, S., Schmidhalter, U., 2011. High throughput phenotyping of canopy water mass and canopy temperature in well—watered and drought stressed tropical maize hybrids in the vegetative stage. Eur Agron 35: 22—32.
Yang, C., Everitt, J. H., Bradford, J. M., Murden, D., 2004.
Airborne hyperspectral imagery and yield monitor data for mapping cotton yield variability. Precis. Agric. 5: 445—461.
Zhang, H., Hinze, L.L., Lan, Y., Westbrook, J.K., Hoffmann, W.C., 2012. Discriminating among Cotton Cultivars with Varying Leaf Characteristics Using Hyperspectral Radiometry. Asabe 55: 275—280.
Zhao, D., Reddy, K. R., Kakani, V. G., Read, J. J., Koti, S., 2007. Canopy reflectance in cotton for growth assessment and lint yield prediction. Europ. J. Agronomy 26: 335—344.