Advertisement

Site specific management on field level: high and low tech approaches

Chapter
Part of the Systems Approaches for Sustainable Agricultural Development book series (SAAD, volume 4)

Abstract

Spatial variability of soil conditions and potato growth were studied in a 6 ha farmers field in a Dutch polder. Potato yields, measured in 65 small plots varied between 30 and 45 tons ha-1, while yields of commercially attractive large potatoes varied between 3 and 15 tons ha-1. An experiment in Niger indicated a major effect of spatial variability on growth of millet, with yields from different plots within a 0.3 ha field varying by as much as a factor 3.6, for the same treatment. Such differences are economically significant in both areas. A high-tech system for site-specific management is discussed for Dutch conditions including site specific sampling for soil fertility and use of dynamic simulation modeling to characterize soil water regimes and nutrient fluxes, e.g. of nitrate. A low-tech system for Niger includes field sampling and site specific interpretation of data obtained. In both cases, uniform fertilization rates based on one mixed sample for the entire field, are bound to result in local over- and underfertilization, implying inefficient use of natural resources. Modeling can be used to balance production and environmental aspects of soil fertilization, as was demonstrated for the Dutch study. Data needs of the WAVE model, used for simulation of yields and nitrate fluxes, are discussed including distinction of only four 'functional layers' for the 6 ha field, which define all variability in basic hydraulic characteristics. Fine-tuning of management practices, including fertilization, taking into account natural variability patterns appears to be an attractive and practical procedure to increase the use-efficiency of natural resources. The Niger example illustrates use of possible low-tech procedures involving field experimentation and improved advisory practices.

Key words

global positioning systems modelling nitrate leaching potato growth pedotranfer functions spatial variability soil fertility 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brouwer J, Fussel L K, Hermann L (1993) Soil and crop growth variability in the West-African semi-arid tropics: a possible risk-reducing factor for subsistence farmers. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 45:229–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brouwer J, Powell J M (1994) Soil aspects of nutrient cycling in a manure application experiment in Niger. Proc. Intern. Workshop on the role of livestock in nutrient cycling in mixed farming systems in sub-Saharan Africa. International Livestock Centre for Africa (ILCA), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. November 22-26, 1993.Google Scholar
  3. Cahn M D, Hummel J W, Goering C E (1994) Mapping maize and soybean yields using GPS and a grain flow sensor. In Robert P C, Rust R H, Larson W E (Eds.) Site specific management for agricultural systems. Spec. Publ. SSSA Madison, Wis, USA (in press).Google Scholar
  4. FAO (1993) FESLM: An international framework for evaluating sustainable land management. World Resources Report 73. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
  5. Finke P A (1993) Field scale variability of soil structure and its impact on crop growth and nitrate leaching in the analysis of fertilizing scenarios. Geoderma 60:89–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Frenzen D W, Peck T R (1994) Sampling for site-specific fertilizer application. In Robert P C, Rust R H, Larson W E (Eds.) Site specific management for agricultural systems. Spec. Publ. SSSA Madison, Wis, USA (in press).Google Scholar
  7. Gaze S R, Brouwer J, Simmonds L P, Bouma J (1995) Measurement of surface redistribution of rainfall and its effect on the water balance of a millet field in SW Niger. J. Hydrology (Special Issue HAPEX Sahel).Google Scholar
  8. Murphy D P, Haneklaus S, Schnug E (1994) Innovative soil sampling and analysis procedures for the local resource management of agricultural soils. Pages 613–631 in Proc. 15th World Congress of Soil Science, Vol. 6a.Google Scholar
  9. Robert P C, Seeley M W, Anderson J L, Cheng H H, Lamb J A, Moncrief J F, Rehm G E, Rosen C J, Schmitt M A (1994) The Minnesota precision farming initiative. In Robert P C, Rust R H, Larson W E (Eds.) Site specific management for agricutural systems. Spec. Publ. SSSA Madison, Wis. USA (in press).Google Scholar
  10. Soil Survey Staff (1975) Soil Taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. USDA.SCS Agric. Handbook 436. US Gov’t printing Office. Washington DC, USA.Google Scholar
  11. Teng P S, Penning de Vries F W T (1992) Systems approaches for agricultural development. Agricultural Systems 40:1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Soil Science and GeologyWageningen Agricultural UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.ICRISAT Sahelian CenterNiameyNiger

Personalised recommendations