1 / 18

Using aerial imagery to aid in selecting fields for variable rate management of inputs

Using Aerial Imagery to Aid Site-Specific Management of Fields report to the Potash and Phosphate Institute Jennifer Wells and Craig Kvien for the Precision Agriculture Team University of Georgia -- NESPAL February 2002.

dieter-eaton
Download Presentation

Using aerial imagery to aid in selecting fields for variable rate management of inputs

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Using Aerial Imageryto Aid Site-SpecificManagement of Fieldsreport to the Potash and Phosphate InstituteJennifer Wells and Craig Kvien for the Precision Agriculture TeamUniversity of Georgia -- NESPALFebruary 2002

  2. Using aerial imagery to aid in selecting fields for variable rate management of inputs

  3. “Good”, “medium”, and “poor” growth areas within each peanut field were selected

  4. Deep core soil samples and divided into A and B horizons • Soil texture, organic matter content, pH, calcium, potassium, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, and zinc measured • Cation exchange capacity estimated

  5. Variability in Surface Texture Field: B-06 83%sand 11%clay 69%sand 19%clay 66%sand 27%clay Medium Growth Yield: 3610 lbs/A Poor Growth Yield: 2257 lbs/A Good Growth Yield: 4013 lbs/A

  6. Variability in Subsoil Texture Field: B-06 82%sand14%clay 78%sand 17%clay 52%sand 42%clay Medium Growth Yield: 3610 lbs/A Poor Growth Yield: 2257 lbs/A Good Growth Yield: 4013 lbs/A

  7. Variability in Organic Matter Field: B-06 1.1% 3.8% 2.7% Medium Growth Yield: 3610 lbs/A Poor Growth Yield: 2257 lbs/A Good Growth Yield: 4013 lbs/A

  8. Variability in Phosphorus in Surface Horizon Field: Thaggard7 221 lbs P/A 118 lbs P/A 278 lbs P/A Good Growth Yield: 4716 lbs/A Poor Growth Yield: 3177 lbs/A Medium Growth Yield: 3866 lbs/A

  9. Variability in Phosphorus in Subsoil Field: Groover Poor Growth 1 21 lbs P/A Yield: 3021 lbs/A Good Growth 8 lbs P/A Yield: 4554 lbs/A Medium Growth 5 lbs P/A Yield: 4383 lbs/A Poor Growth 2 33 lbs P/A Yield: 4063 lbs/A

  10. Variability in Potassium in Surface Horizon Field: Butler Poor Growth Yield: 3844 lbs/A Medium Growth Yield: 4985 lbs/A Good Growth Yield: 3524 lbs/A 72 lbs K/A 56 lbs K/A 185 lbs K/A

  11. Variability in Potassium in Subsoil Field: Thaggard8 Medium Growth Yield: 4579 lbs/A Good Growth Yield: 4606 lbs/A Poor Growth Yield: 2155 lbs/A 138 lbs K/A 116 lbs K/A 40 lbs K/A

  12. Variability in Calcium in Surface Field: Groover Poor Growth 1 Yield: 3021 lbs/A 392 lbs Ca/A Good Growth Yield: 4554 lbs/A 1088 lbs Ca/A Medium Growth Yield: 4383 lbs/A 800 lbs Ca/A Poor Growth 2 Yield: 4063 lbs/A 267 lbs Ca/A

  13. Variability in Calcium in Subsoil Field: Butler Poor Growth1 Yield: 3987 lbs/A Poor Growth2 Yield: 3844 lbs/A Medium Growth Yield: 4985 lbs/A Good Growth Yield: 3524 lbs/A 294 lbs Ca/A 180 lbs Ca/A 162 lbs Ca/A 624 lbs Ca/A

  14. Variability in CEC in Surface Field: Groover Poor Growth 1 Yield: 3021 lbs/A 1.6 meq/100g Good Growth Yield: 4554 lbs/A 4.0 meq/100g Medium Growth Yield: 4383 lbs/A 2.9 meq/100g Poor Growth 2 Yield: 4063 lbs/A 1.1 meq/100g

  15. Variability in pH at Surface Field: Crossroads pH 6.8 pH 5.9 pH 6.0 Poor Growth Yield: 2492 lbs/A Good Growth Yield: 3979 lbs/A Medium Growth Yield: 4110 lbs/A

  16. Variability in pH in Subsoil Field: Thaggard7 pH 5.0 pH 5.5 pH 5.0 Good Growth Yield: 4716 lbs/A Poor Growth Yield: 3177 lbs/A Medium Growth Yield: 3866 lbs/A

  17. We found large differences in soil properties among the sixteen fields. • The reasons for differences varied both within and between fields, and no single reason was common among all of the fields. • Site-specific agriculture embraces the concept of variability within a field, thus it is no surprise that the reasons for variability between fields also varied.

  18. This brief report contains a small sub-set of data now being analyzed as part of Jennifer Wells’ MS thesis project. For more information: • Craig Kvien (ckvien@tifton.cpes.peachnet.edu) • Jennifer Wells (jsanders@tifton.cpes.peachnet.edu).

More Related