Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Using NDVI and soil quality analysis to assess influence of agronomic management on within-plot spatial variability and factors limiting production

  • Regular Article
  • Published:
Plant and Soil Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Crop growth and yield are the result of the efficiency of the chosen agricultural management system within the boundaries of the agro-ecological environment. Linking spatial variability in crop performance to differences in soil attributes could identify the limiting factors driving the system, since patterns of crop performance will follow the spatial variability of the underlying limiting soil attributes. The Greenseeker handheld NDVI sensor was used to determine the within-plot spatial variability of crop performance in the different management treatments of a long-term (started 1991) tillage and residue management trial. Soil quality was measured spatially in the same plots. Under zero tillage with residue removal, soil quality and crop performance followed micro-topography with higher values where elevation was lower. Under zero tillage with residue retention soil quality was high throughout the field, ensuring uniform crop growth and under conventional tillage, soil quality was intermediate. Crop performance followed the same pattern as soil moisture and the related attributes infiltration, soil structure and organic matter. Thus soil moisture is the main limiting factor of the system and it is essential for the sustainability of any management practice developed for the subtropical highlands that soil water capture and storage are optimal. Zero tillage with residue retention is therefore the practice that will result in the most sustainable management and the most stable yields for this target area.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barthès B, Roose E (2002) Aggregate stability as an indicator of soil susceptility to runoff and erosion; validation at several levels. Catena 47:133–149 doi:10.1016/S0341-8162(01)00180-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bremner JM, Mulvaney CS (1982) Nitrogen-total. In: Page AL (ed) Methods of soil analysis: cemical methods part 2. ASA, Madison, WI, pp 595–624

    Google Scholar 

  • Doorenbos J, Kassam AK (1979) Yield response to water. Irrigation and Drainage Paper 33. FAORomep 176

    Google Scholar 

  • Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) (2006) ArcGIS 9.2 geostatistical analyst. ESRI, Redlands, California, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Esbensen KH (2002) Multivariate data analysis— in practice, 5th edn. CAMO Process AS, Oslo, Norway, p 598

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer RA, Santiveri F, Vidal IR (2002a) Crop rotation, tillage and crop residue management for wheat and maize in the subhumid tropical highlands I. Wheat and legume performance. Field Crops Res 79:107–122 doi:10.1016/S0378-4290(02)00157-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer RA, Santiveri F, Vidal IR (2002b) Crop rotation, tillage and crop residue management for wheat and maize in the subhumid tropical highlands II. Maize and system performance. Field Crops Res 79:123–137 doi:10.1016/S0378-4290(02)00158-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frogbrook ZL, Oliver MA, Salahi M, Ellis RH (1999) Comparing the relations in the spatial variation of soil and crop attributes. In: Stafford JV (ed) Precis agriculture‘99, part 1. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield, pp 397–406

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginting D, Moncrief JF, Gupta SC (2003) Performance of a variable tillage system based on interactions with landscape and soil. Precis Agric 4:19–34 doi:10.1023/A:1021806920399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Govaerts B, Sayre KD, Deckers J (2005) Stable high yields with zero tillage and permanent bed planting? Field Crops Res 94:33–42 doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2004.11.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Govaerts B, Sayre KD, Deckers J (2006a) A minimum data set for soil quality assessment of wheat and maize cropping in the highlands of Mexico. Soil Tillage Res 87:163–174 doi:10.1016/j.still.2005.03.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Govaerts B, Mezzalama M, Sayre KD, Crossa J, Nicol JM, Deckers J (2006b) Long-term consequences of tillage, residue management, and crop rotation on maize/wheat root rot and nematode populations. Appl Soil Ecol 32:305–315 doi:10.1016/j.apsoil.2005.07.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Govaerts B, Verhulst N, Sayre KD, De Corte P, Goudeseune B, Lichter K, Crossa J, Deckers J, Dendooven L (2007a) Evaluating spatial within plot crop variability for different management practices with an optical sensor? Plant Soil 299:29–42 doi:10.1007/s11104-007-9358-6

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Govaerts B, Fuentes M, Sayre KD, Mezzalama M, Nicol JM, Deckers J, Etchevers J, Figueroa-Sandoval B (2007b) Infiltration, soil moisture, root rot and nematode populations after 12 years of different tillage, residue and crop rotation managements. Soil Tillage Res 87:163–174 doi:10.1016/j.still.2005.03.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Govaerts B, Mezzalama M, Sayre KD, Crossa J, Lichter K, Troch V, Vanherck K, De Corte P, Deckers J (2007c) Long-term consequences of tillage, residue management, and crop rotation on selected soil micro-flora groups in the subtropical highlands. Appl Soil Ecol 38:197–210 doi:10.1016/j.apsoil.2007.10.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Govaerts B, Mezzalama M, Unno Y, Sayre KD, Luna-Guido M, Vanherck K, Dendooven L, Deckers J (2007d) Influence of tillage, residue management, and crop rotation on soil microbial biomass and catabolic diversity. Appl Soil Ecol 37:18–30 doi:10.1016/j.apsoil.2007.03.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IUSS Working Group WRB (2006) World reference base for soil resources 2006, 2nd edn. World Soil Resources Reports No. 103. FAO, Rome, p 128

  • Kemper WD, Chepil WS (1965) Size distribution of aggregates. In: Black CA (ed) Methods of soil analysis. part I. Agronomy series no. 9. ASA, Madison, WI, pp 499–509

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemper WD, Rosenau RC (1986) Aggregate stability and size distribution. In: Klute A, Campbell GS, Jackson RD, Mortland MM, Nielsen DR (eds) Methods of soil analysis. Part I. ASA and SSSA, Madison, WI, pp 425–442

    Google Scholar 

  • Kravchenko AN, Bullock DG (2000) Correlation of corn and soybean grain yield with topography and soil properties. Agron J 92:75–83 doi:10.1007/s100870050010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kravchenko AN, Robertson GP, Thelen KD, Harwood RR (2005) Management, topographical en weather effects on spatial variability of crop grain yields. Agron J 97:514–523

    Google Scholar 

  • Limon-Ortega A, Sayre KD, Drijber RA, Francis CA (2002) Soil attributes in a furrow-irrigated bed planting system in northwest Mexico. Soil Tillage Res 63:123–132 doi:10.1016/S0167-1987(01)00230-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopez-Noverola U (1995) El C, N y P de la biomasa microbiana en suelos con diversos manejos. Tesis de Maestria en Ciencias. Colegio de Postgraduados en Ciencias Agrícolas. Instituto de Recursos Naturales. Programa Edafología. Montecillo, Estado de Mexico, Mexico, pp 150

  • Machado S, Bynum ED Jr, Archer TL, Bordovsky J, Rosenow DT, Peterson C, Bronson K, Nesmith DM, Lascano RJ, Wilson LT, Segarra E (2002) Spatial and temporal variability of sorghum grain yield: Influence of soil, water, pests, and diseases relationships. Precis Agric 3:389–406 doi:10.1023/A:1021597023005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martens H, Naes T (1998) Multivariate calibration. Wiley, Chichester, p 438

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin KL, Hodgen PJ, Freeman KW, Melchiori R, Arnall DB, Teal RK, Mullen RW, Desta K, Phillips SB, Solie JB, Stone ML, Caviglia O, Solari F, Bianchini A, Francis DI, Schepers JS, Hatfield J, Raun WR (2005) Plant-to-plant variability in corn production. Agron J 97:1603–1611 doi:10.2134/agronj2005.0129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SAS Institute (1994) SAS user’s guide. SAS Inst., Cary, NC, USA.

  • Scholenberger S (1992) In: The council on soil testing and plant analysis, handbook on reference methods for soil analysis. Athens, Georgia

  • Scopel E, Da Silva FAM, Corbeels M, Affholder FO, Maraux F (2004) Modelling crop residue mulching effects on water use and production of maize under semi-arid and humid tropical conditions. Agronomie 24:383–395 doi:10.1051/agro:2004029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shatar TM, McBratney AB (1999) Empirical modeling of relationships between sorghum yield and soil properties. Precis Agric 1:249–276 doi:10.1023/A:1009968907612

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soil Survey Staff (2003) Keys to soil taxonomy. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington DC, p 332

    Google Scholar 

  • Stafford JV, Ambler B, Lark RM, Catt J (1996) Mapping and interpreting the yield variation in cereal crops. Comput Electron Agric 14:101–119 doi:10.1016/0168-1699(95)00042-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong MTF, Asseng S (2006) Determining the causes of spatial and temporal variability of wheat yields at sub-field scale using a new method of upscaling a crop model. Plant Soil 283:203–215 doi:10.1007/s11104-006-0012-5

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

N.V. received a PhD fellowship of the Research Foundation-Flanders. We thank A. Martinez, M. Martinez, H. González-Juárez, J. Garcia-Ramirez and M. Perez for technical assistance; V. Hernandez-Rodriguez, E. Carrasco-Beltran and D. Hodson for help with the generation of the maps; J. M. Ceballos-Ramírez and M. Luna-Guido for help with the lab analyses. The research was funded by the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT, Int.).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division Soil and Water Management, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Celestijnenlaan 200 E, 3001, Leuven, Belgium

    N. Verhulst & J. Deckers

  2. International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT), Apdo. Postal 6-641, 06600, Mexico, D.F., Mexico

    B. Govaerts & K. D. Sayre

  3. Division of Crop Biotechnics, Department of Biosystems, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Willem de Croylaan 42, 3001, Leuven, Belgium

    I. M. François

  4. Departamento de Biotecnología y Bioingeniería, Cinvestav, Avenida Instituto Politécnico Nacional 2508, C. P. 07360, México, D. F., México

    L. Dendooven

Authors
  1. N. Verhulst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. B. Govaerts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K. D. Sayre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. Deckers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. I. M. François
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. L. Dendooven
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. Govaerts.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Len Wade.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Verhulst, N., Govaerts, B., Sayre, K.D. et al. Using NDVI and soil quality analysis to assess influence of agronomic management on within-plot spatial variability and factors limiting production. Plant Soil 317, 41–59 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-008-9787-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-008-9787-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation