| Literature DB >> 26042128 |
Antonio Elia1, Giulia Conversa1.
Abstract
Reduced water availability and environmental pollution caused by nitrogen (N) losses have increased the need for rational management of irrigation and N fertilization in horticultural systems. Decision support systems (DSS) could be powerful tools to assist farmers to improve irrigation and N fertilization efficiency. Currently, fertilization by drip irrigation system (fertigation) is used for many vegetable crops around the world. The paper illustrates the theoretical basis, the methodological approach and the structure of a DSS called GesCoN for fertigation management in open field vegetable crops. The DSS is based on daily water and N balance, considering the water lost by evapotranspiration (ET) and the N content in the aerial part of the crop (N uptake) as subtraction and the availability of water and N in the wet soil volume most effected by roots as the positive part. For the water balance, reference ET can be estimated using the Penman-Monteith (PM) or the Priestley-Taylor and Hargreaves models, specifically calibrated under local conditions. Both single or dual Kc approach can be used to calculate crop ET. Rain runoff and deep percolation are considered to calculate the effective rainfall. The soil volume most affected by the roots, the wet soil under emitters and their interactions are modeled. Crop growth is modeled by a non-linear logistic function on the basis of thermal time, but the model takes into account thermal and water stresses and allows an in-season calibration through a dynamic adaptation of the growth rate to the specific genetic and environmental conditions. N crop demand is related to DM accumulation by the N critical curve. N mineralization from soil organic matter is daily estimated. The DSS helps users to evaluate the daily amount of water and N fertilizer that has to be applied in order to fulfill the water and N-crop requirements to achieve the maximum potential yield, while reducing the risk of nitrate outflows.Entities:
Keywords: crop growth modeling; nitrate vulnerable zones; nitrogen uptake simulation model; nutrient budgeting; sustainable fertilization
Year: 2015 PMID: 26042128 PMCID: PMC4438600 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2015.00319
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 5.753
Figure 1Scheme of the main relationships considered in the water balance by .
Mathematical expression for the selected pedotransfer functions used by .
| 1 | θ | Rawls et al., |
| θ | ||
| 2 | θ | Hutson. (reproduced from Hutson and Wagenet, |
| θ | ||
| 3 | θ | Manrique et al., |
| θ | ||
| θ | ||
| 4 | θ | British soil service. (reproduced from Hutson and Wagenet, |
| θ | ||
| 5 | θ | Petersen et al., |
| θ | ||
| 6 | θ | Bruand et al., |
| θ | ||
| 7 | θ | Canarache, |
| θ | ||
| 8 | θ | Hall et al., |
| θ | ||
| 9 | Saxton et al., | |
| θ | ||
| θ | ||
θ, soil water content at permanent wilting point; θ, soil water content at permanent field capacity; Cl, % of clay content; Si, % of silt content; Sa, % of sand content; BD, bulk density (g cm−); OM, % organic matter content; Sat, saturated hydraulic conductivity.
Default setting by the software.
Figure 2Example of Hargreaves over Penman-Monteith estimates as daily ET.
Figure 3Deviations in daily ET. The test relates to a typical period for a processing tomato crop in the Foggia area (Southern Italy) and is given as an example of the accuracy of the Hargreaves and Priestley-Taylor model after site calibration.
Figure 4A three-dimensional representation of the physical model used by GesCoN to simulate the interaction between root apparatus and the wet soil volume under an emitter source point. The case refers to the interaction of a drip line with two twin rows.
Figure 5Scheme of the main relationships considered for the N balance by .
Crop management coefficient () used to consider crop management in the calculation of the modifier of the mineralization coefficient () in the organic matter indicator (from Bockstaller and Girardin, .
| Removed or burned | 0.8 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 1.1 |
| Incorporated once every 2 years | 0.9 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Incorporated every year | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.3 |
Entries and parameters used by to work on a crop.
| Sector info | 1 | Sector I | SS | |
| 2 | Latitude | SS | ||
| 3 | Elevation (m) | SS | ||
| 4 | File name with the historical meteorological data. (this file must be previously prepared by the user in order to allow the DSS to operate in simulation mode). | (SS) | ||
| 5 | NVZ area (Y/N) | SS | ||
| Soil chemical profile | 6 | Soil organic matter content (mg kg−1) | SS | |
| 7 | Soil organic N content (mg kg−1) | SS | ||
| 8 | Soil NO3-N content (mg kg−1) | SS | ||
| 9 | Soil NH4-N content (mg kg−1) | SS | ||
| 10 | Soil total CaCO3 content (mg kg−1) | SS | ||
| Soil physical properties | 11 | Soil clay content (g kg−1) | SS | |
| 12 | Soil silt content (g kg−1) | SS | ||
| 13 | Soil sand content (g kg−1) | SS | ||
| 14 | USDA soil classification | AS | ||
| Crop profile | 15 | Species common nam | US | |
| 16 | Cultivar name | US | ||
| 17 | Plant to plant spacing (cm) | US | ||
| 18 | Between rows distance (cm) | US | ||
| 19 | Between twins distance (cm) | US | ||
| 20 | Planting date (date) | US | ||
| 21 | Expected fresh yield (g/plant) | C | ||
| 22 | Plant arrangement (single or twin row) | US | ||
| 23 | Presence of film mulching (Y/N) | US | ||
| 24 | C | |||
| 25 | C | |||
| 26 | Dry mass content in the fresh yield at harvest (%) | C – L | ||
| 27 | Harvest index | C – L | ||
| 28 | Days with low SDW increment before full maturity (no.) | C | ||
| 29 | Minimum thermal sum for crop maturity (°Cd) | C | ||
| 30 | Maximum thermal sum for crop maturity (°Cd) | C | ||
| 31 | Readily available water (% of | L | ||
| Irrigation setup | 32 | Drip lines spacing (cm) | US | |
| 33 | Emitter spacing (cm) | US | ||
| 34 | Emitter discharge rate (L/h) | US | ||
| 35 | Irrigation system efficiency (%) | US | ||
| 36 | Maximum duration of an irrigation (h) | US | ||
| 37 | Additional irrigation water (%) | US | ||
| Soil hydraulic properties | 38 | Bulk density (g cm−3) | (SS) – AS | |
| 39 | Field capacity (m3 m−3) | (SS) – AS | ||
| 40 | Permanent wilting point (m3 m−3) | (SS) – AS | ||
| 41 | Saturated water content (m3 m−3) | (SS) – AS | ||
| 42 | Saturated hydraulic conductivity (cm d−1) | (SS) – AS | ||
| Plant growth | 43 | DW of plantlets at transplanting (g) | US | |
| 44 | Reference dry weight of plantlets at transplanting (g | C | ||
| 45 | Initial growth rate (lag phase at plantlets stage) (g d−1) | C | ||
| 46 | β | β | C | |
| 47 | β2 | β2 parameter of the logistic function for shoot growth | C | |
| 48 | β3 | β3 parameter of the logistic function for shoot growth | C | |
| 49 | Initial root radius (cm) | US | ||
| 50 | Maximum root radius of the most efficient part (cm) | C – L | ||
| 51 | Initial root depth (cm) | US | ||
| 52 | Maximum root depth of the most efficient part (cm) | C – L | ||
| 53 | Number of days to reach maximum values (DAT) | C | ||
| 54 | Stage of the crop at harvest (full ripen fruit / immature fruit/ vegetative growth) | US | ||
| 55 | Base temperature (°C) | C – L | ||
| 56 | Maximum temperature (°C) | C | ||
| 57 | Cut-off temperature (°C) | C | ||
| 58 | Beginning of flowering (°Cd) | C | ||
| 59 | Duration of flowering (°Cd) | C | ||
| 60 | Maximum temperature for flowering period (°C) | C | ||
| 61 | Averaged dry biomass response factor to water stress | C – L | ||
| 62 | Shape coefficient for the adjustment of T | C | ||
| 63 | Shape coefficient for the adjustment of T | C | ||
| 64 | Shape coefficient for the adjustment of T | C | ||
| 65 | Shape coefficient for the adjustment of the expected final SDW | C | ||
| 66 | Shape coefficient for the adjustment of expected final SDW | C | ||
| ET0 assessments | 67 | Method for ET0 estimation [selection of: ET0 from the nearby meteorological station (S) / Penman-Monteith (PM) / Priestley-Taylor (PT) / Hargreaves-Samani (HS)] | US | |
| 68 | Locally calibrated HS function coefficient | C – L | ||
| 69 | Locally and crop calibrated albedo coefficient | C – L | ||
| 70 | Locally calibrated PT function coefficient | C – L | ||
| 71–75 | From 1 to 5 meteorological dataset files to be previously prepared and used only in case of Hargreaves calibration | (SS) | ||
| Nitrogen | 76 | Pre-planting N (kg ha−1) | US | |
| 77 | N in the irrigation water (ppm) | US | ||
| 78 | Critical curve parameter | C – L | ||
| 79 | Critical curve parameter | C – L | ||
| 80 | Minimum N reserve in the soil (kg ha−1) in the initial phase | C | ||
| 81 | Minimum N reserve in the soil (kg ha−1) in the mid phase | C | ||
| 82 | Minimum N reserve in the soil (kg ha−1) in the final phase | C | ||
| 83 | N applied in the same year on the same soil (kg ha−1) | US | ||
| Kc options | 84 | Kc mode selection (single or dual) | US | |
| 85 | Time in days to complete the initial phase (DAT) | C | ||
| 86 | Time in days to start the middle phase (DAT) | C | ||
| 87 | Time in days to complete the middle phase (DAT) | C | ||
| 88 | Time in days to complete the cycle (DAT) | C | ||
| 89 | Kc-valueduring the initial growth stage of the cyc | C – L | ||
| 90 | Kc-value during the middle growth stage | C – L | ||
| 91 | Kc-value during the late growth stage | C – L | ||
| 92 | Kcb-valueduring the initial growth stage of the cycle | C – L | ||
| 93 | Kcb-value during the middle growth stage | C – L | ||
| 94 | Kcb-value during the late growth stage | C – L | ||
| 95 | Soil covered during the initial growth stage of the cycle (%) | C | ||
| 96 | Soil covered during the middle growth stage (%) | C | ||
| 97 | Soil covered during the late growth stage (%) | C | ||
| 98 | Average plant height during the initial phase (cm) | C | ||
| 99 | Average plant height during the mid-phase (cm) | C | ||
| 100 | Average plant height during the final phase (cm) | C | ||
| SOM mineralization | 101 | Mineralization weight fact | US | |
| 102 | Tillage factor | US | ||
| 103 | Maximum plough depth (cm) | US | ||
| 104 | Crop residues management | US | ||
| Pedo-transfer functions | 105 | US | ||
| Runoff | 106 | Selection of the method (User defined / Curve Number) | US | |
| 107 | Initial abstraction (only in the case of an user defined approach) | US | ||
| 108 | Percentage of rain that is considered effective (only in the case of a user defined approach) (%) | US | ||
| 109 | Crop/soil arrangement (in the case of the Curve Number method) | US | ||
| 110 | Hydrological soil conditions (in the case of the Curve Number method) | US | ||
| 111 | Crop residues presence (in the case of the Curve Number method) | US | ||
SS, site-specific, parameters related to the site; US, user-specifc, parameters related to the crop and the soil management; C, parameters which need to be calibrated on each crop from specific research; L, parameters generally available from the literature; AS, parameters for which the value is automatically suggested by the software.
DAT: days after transplant.
Figure 6Example of a final output of a fertigation management. The output summarize in tabular form the fertigations suggested during the cultivation period, giving information on the suggested amount of water and N rate to apply at each single event, and other details on the estimated N crop uptake, N mineralization from SOM, interception of the mineral N reserve and the residual N in the soil. Some of the above data are also presented in graphical form in the two lateral graphs.