Management of Plant Growth Regulators in Cotton Using Active Crop Canopy Sensors
"> Figure 1
<p>Approximate view from each sensor position and mounting points in the high clearance vehicle used to move the sensors through the field. Pictures from 2014/2015 crop season of narrow row cotton cultivated in a sandy loam Quartzipsamment in Mato Grosso state.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Variable rate application of plant growth regulator in narrow-row cotton using an electronic flow controller.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Uneven crop emergence and short scale variability at BBCH 51 in field NF1 during the 2013/2014 crop season and BBCH 51 in field CF3 during the 2014/2015 crop season.</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Relation of crop aboveground fresh biomass and crop height in five crop stages (BBCH) for cotton cultivated in two systems: narrow row (NF1) and conventional row spacing (CF1).</p> "> Figure 5
<p>Sensor performance to predict crop parameters: dry biomass (Dry B.), fresh biomass (Fresh B.), height of top five nodes (H. Five), crop height (Height) and height-to-node ratio (HNR) with three crop sensors: OPS1: N-Sensor™ ALS; OPS2: Crop Circle ACS 430; US2: HC-SR04; for cotton cultivated in two systems: narrow row (NF2) and conventional row spacing (CF2 and CF3).</p> "> Figure 6
<p>Frequency distribution of crop height in field NF2 under fixed-rate and variable-rate application of plant growth regulators.</p> "> Figure 7
<p>Spatial distribution of crop height in five phenological stages of narrow-row cotton in field NF2.</p> "> Figure 8
<p>Frequency distribution of crop height in field CF3 under fixed rate and variable rate application of plant growth regulators.</p> "> Figure 9
<p>Spatial distribution of crop height in five phenological stages of conventional row spacing cotton in field CF3.</p> "> Figure 10
<p>Spatial distribution of applied plant growth regulators and cottonseed yield in narrow row cotton in field NF2.</p> "> Figure 11
<p>Spatial distribution of applied plant growth regulators and cottonseed yield in conventional row spacing cotton in field CF3.</p> "> Figure A1
<p>Crop height prediction in five crop stages according to BBCH scale using three crop sensors: OPS1: N-Sensor™ ALS; OPS2: Crop Circle ACS 430; US1: Polaroid 6500, for cotton cultivated in two systems: narrow row (NF1) and conventional row spacing (CF1).</p> "> Figure A2
<p>Crop aboveground fresh biomass prediction in five crop stages according to BBCH scale using three crop sensors: optical sensor 1 (OPS1: N-Sensor); optical sensor 2 (OPS2: Crop Circle); ultrasonic sensor 1 (US1: Polaroid), for cotton cultivated in two systems: narrow row (NF1) and conventional row spacing (CF1).</p> "> Figure A3
<p>Relation of hand measured crop height and aboveground fresh biomass with height of top five nodes (H. Five), height-to-node ratio (HNR) and dry biomass (Dry B.) for cotton cultivated in two systems: narrow row (NF2) and conventional row spacing (CF2 and CF3).</p> "> Figure A4
<p>Spatial distribution of crop height measured by ultrasonic sensors before harvest of cotton cultivated in two systems: narrow row (NF1) and conventional row spacing (CF1 and CF2).</p> "> Figure A5
<p>Spatial distribution of clay content in field NF2.</p> ">
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Sensor Performance to Predict Crop Parameters
2.2. Variable Rate Application of PGR
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Sensor Performance to Predict Height and Biomass in Different Crop Stages
3.2. Sensor Performance to Predict General Crop Parameters
3.3. Crop Response to Variable Rate PGR
3.4. Input Savings and Yield Response to Variable Rate of PGR
4. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
References
- FAO. South-South Cooperation for Strengthening the Cotton Sector; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- CONAB (Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento). Acompanhamento da safra brasileira. Décimo Segundo Levant 2017, 4, 1–98. [Google Scholar]
- Echer, F.R.; Rosolem, C.A. Plant growth regulation: A method for fine-tuning mepiquat chloride rates in cotton. Pesqui. Agropecu. Trop. 2017, 47, 286–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leon, C.T.; Shaw, D.R.; Cox, M.S.; Abshire, M.J.; Ward, B.; Wardlaw, M.C.; Watson, C. Utility of Remote Sensing in Predicting Crop and Soil Characteristics. Precis. Agric. 2003, 4, 359–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sui, R.; Thomasson, J.A. Ground-based sensing system for cotton nitrogen status determination. Trans. ASABE 2006, 49, 1983–1991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gutierrez, M.; Norton, R.; Thorp, K.R.; Wang, G. Association of spectral reflectance indices with plant growth and lint yield in upland cotton. Crop Sci. 2012, 52, 849–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ballester, C.; Hornbuckle, J.; Brinkhoff, J.; Smith, J.; Quayle, W. Assessment of in-season cotton nitrogen status and lint yield prediction from unmanned aerial system imagery. Remote Sens. 2017, 9, 1149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Souza, H.B.; Baio, F.H.R.; Neves, D.C. Using Passive and Active Multispectral Sensors on the Correlation With the Phenological Indices of Cotton. Eng. Agric. 2017, 37, 782–789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vellidis, G.; Savelle, H.; Ritchie, R.G.; Harris, G.; Hill, R.; Henry, H. NDVI response of cotton to nitrogen application rates in Georgia, USA. In Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Precision Agriculture, Prague, Czech Republic, 11–14 July 2011; pp. 358–368. [Google Scholar]
- Foote, W.; Edmisten, K.; Wells, R.; Collins, G.; Roberson, G.; Jordan, D.; Fisher, L. Influence of Nitrogen and Mepiquat Chloride on Cotton Canopy Reflectance Measurements. J. Cotton Sci. 2016, 20, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
- Jasper, J.; Reusch, S.; Link, A. Active sensing of the N status of wheat using optimized wavelength combination: Impact of seed rate, variety and growth stage. In Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Precision Agriculture, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 6–8 July 2009; Volume 9, pp. 23–30. [Google Scholar]
- Bleiholder, H.; Weber, E.; Lancashire, P.D.; Feller, C.; Buhr, L.; Hess, M.; Wicke, H.; Hack, H.; Meier, U.; Klose, R.; et al. Growth stages of mono-and dicotyledonous plants, BBCH monograph. Fed. Biol. Res. Cent. Agric. For. Berl. Braunschw. 2001, 12, 158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Core Team: Vienna, Austria, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Baio, F.H.R.; Neves, D.C.; Souza, H.B.; Leal, A.J.F.; Leite, R.C.; Molin, J.P.; Silva, S.P. Variable rate spraying application on cotton using an electronic flow controller. Precis. Agric. 2018, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spekken, M.; Anselmi, A.A.; Molin, J.P. A simple method for filtering spatial data. Proc. Precis. Agric. 2013, 20, 1531–1538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- QGIS Development Team. QGIS Geographic Information System; QGIS Development Team: Las Palmas, Spain, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Antuniassi, U.R.; Baio, F.H.R.; Sharp, T.C. Agricultura de Precisão. In Algodão no Cerrado do Brasil; BDPA: Brasília, Brazil, 2015; pp. 767–806. [Google Scholar]
- Amaral, L.R.; Trevisan, R.G.; Molin, J.P. Canopy sensor placement for variable-rate nitrogen application in sugarcane fields. Precis. Agric. 2017, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Field * | State | Crop Season | Area (ha) | Row Spacing (m) | Variety | Emergence Date | Seed Density (Seed ha−1) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CF1 | GO | 2013/2014 | 93.8 | 0.80 | FM 975 WS | 8 January 2014 | 100,000 |
NF1 | GO | 2013/2014 | 88.5 | 0.45 | FM 975 WS | 23 January 2014 | 190,000 |
CF2 | MT | 2014/2015 | 139.7 | 0.76 | DP 1243 B2RF | 7 January 2015 | 95,000 |
NF2 | MT | 2014/2015 | 203.4 | 0.45 | TMG 81 WS | 22 January 2015 | 205,000 |
CF3 | MT | 2014/2015 | 142.3 | 0.76 | TMG 81 WS | 17 January 2015 | 100,000 |
Sensor System | OPS1 | OPS2 |
---|---|---|
Model | N-Sensor ALS | Crop Circle ACS 430 |
Light source | Xenon | Polychromatic modulated LED |
Spectral bands | 730 nm (RedEdge) 760 nm (NIR) | 670 nm (RED) 730 nm (RedEdge) 780 nm (NIR) |
Vegetation index | 100 × | |
Acquisition frequency | 1 Hz | 5 Hz |
Mounting height | 2.0–4.0 m | 0.6–1.2 m |
Field of view | 40°–55° | 45/10° |
Sensor footprint | 2.0–4.0 m | 0.5–1.0 m |
Sensor System | US1 | US2 |
---|---|---|
Model | Polaroid 6500 | HC-SR04 |
Working frequency | 49.4 kHz | 40.0 kHz |
Acquisition frequency | 1 Hz | 5 Hz |
Mounting height | 0.6–1.2 m | 0.6–1.2 m |
Field of view | 30° | 20° |
Sensor footprint | 0.3–0.6 m | 0.2–0.4 m |
Crop Parameter | Field | Sensor | BBCH * | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
51 | 61 | 71 | 81 | 95 | |||
Height | NF1 | OPS1 | 0.70 (0.02) | 0.64 (0.03) | 0.68 (0.05) | 0.62 (0.03) | 0.67 (0.04) |
OPS2 | 0.18 (0.03) | 0.38 (0.04) | 0.04 (0.08) | 0.37 (0.04) | 0.23 (0.06) | ||
US1 | 0.02 (0.04) | 0.11 (0.05) | 0.00 (0.08) | 0.29 (0.05) | |||
CF1 | OPS1 | 0.83 (0.02) | 0.94 (0.03) | 0.90 (0.07) | 0.32 (0.12) | 0.55 (0.10) | |
OPS2 | 0.52 (0.08) | 0.80 (0.10) | 0.11 (0.13) | 0.48 (0.11) | |||
US1 | 0.01 (0.05) | 0.75 (0.06) | 0.85 (0.08) | 0.56 (0.09) | |||
Fresh Biomass | NF1 | OPS1 | 0.78 (0.50) | 0.68 (1.12) | 0.54 (2.73) | 0.27 (2.75) | 0.64 (3.49) |
OPS2 | 0.43 (0.81) | 0.56 (1.27) | 0.02 (4.00) | 0.28 (2.74) | 0.31 (4.81) | ||
US1 | 0.04 (1.05) | 0.21 (1.71) | 0.00 (4.04) | 0.00 (2.90) | |||
CF1 | OPS1 | 0.67 (0.48) | 0.96 (0.76) | 0.90 (2.77) | 0.17 (5.45) | 0.55 (5.08) | |
OPS2 | 0.57 (2.45) | 0.80 (3.98) | 0.14 (5.55) | 0.48 (5.44) | |||
US1 | 0.01 (0.71) | 0.70 (1.94) | 0.71 (4.82) | 0.39 (4.67) |
Field | Sensor * | Dry B. | Fresh B. | H. Five | Height | HNR |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CF2 | OPS1 | 0.46 (0.15) | 0.66 (0.31) | 0.38 (0.02) | 0.77 (0.07) | 0.50 (0.51) |
OPS2 | 0.65 (0.14) | 0.74 (0.29) | 0.51 (0.02) | 0.81 (0.07) | 0.69 (0.47) | |
US2 | 0.52 (0.15) | 0.73 (0.29) | 0.41 (0.02) | 0.84 (0.06) | 0.61 (0.49) | |
CF3 | OPS1 | 0.65 (0.14) | 0.81 (0.21) | 0.50 (0.02) | 0.72 (0.06) | 0.44 (0.37) |
OPS2 | 0.58 (0.14) | 0.71 (0.24) | 0.38 (0.02) | 0.55 (0.07) | 0.37 (0.36) | |
US2 | 0.61 (0.14) | 0.75 (0.23) | 0.53 (0.02) | 0.78 (0.05) | 0.43 (0.37) | |
NF2 | OPS1 | 0.71 (0.19) | 0.85 (0.33) | 0.66 (0.04) | 0.82 (0.08) | 0.73 (0.50) |
OPS2 | 0.74 (0.19) | 0.91 (0.27) | 0.80 (0.03) | 0.89 (0.07) | 0.78 (0.47) | |
US2 | 0.71 (0.19) | 0.90 (0.27) | 0.79 (0.03) | 0.92 (0.06) | 0.81 (0.45) |
Field | Application | BBCH | Product | Average Rate (L ha−1) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fixed Rate | Variable Rate | ||||
NF2 | 1st PGR | 51 | PIX HC | 0.030 | 0.026 |
2nd PGR | 61 | PIX HC | 0.050 | 0.043 | |
3rd PGR | 71 | PIX HC | 0.080 | 0.069 | |
4th PGR | 76 | PIX HC | 0.120 | 0.104 | |
5th PGR | 81 | PIX HC | 0.150 | 0.131 | |
Defoliant | 98 | DROPP ULTRA | 0.400 | 0.312 | |
Boll Opener | 98 | FINISH | 2.000 | 1.560 | |
CF3 | 1st PGR | 71 | PIX HC | 0.050 | 0.046 |
2nd PGR | 76 | PIX HC | 0.080 | 0.053 | |
3rd PGR | 81 | PIX HC | 0.120 | 0.080 | |
Defoliant | 98 | DROPP ULTRA | 0.500 | 0.458 | |
Boll Opener | 98 | FINISH | 2.500 | 2.292 |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Trevisan, R.G.; Vilanova Júnior, N.S.; Eitelwein, M.T.; Molin, J.P. Management of Plant Growth Regulators in Cotton Using Active Crop Canopy Sensors. Agriculture 2018, 8, 101. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture8070101
Trevisan RG, Vilanova Júnior NS, Eitelwein MT, Molin JP. Management of Plant Growth Regulators in Cotton Using Active Crop Canopy Sensors. Agriculture. 2018; 8(7):101. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture8070101
Chicago/Turabian StyleTrevisan, Rodrigo Gonçalves, Natanael Santana Vilanova Júnior, Mateus Tonini Eitelwein, and José Paulo Molin. 2018. "Management of Plant Growth Regulators in Cotton Using Active Crop Canopy Sensors" Agriculture 8, no. 7: 101. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture8070101