Assessing benefits of two sensing approaches for variable rate nitrogen fertilization in wheat

PurposeIn contemporary agriculture, achieving sustainable food production while preserving the environment is crucial. Traditional uniform rate nitrogen fertilization (URNF) often leads to over- or under-applications of N in fields with negative economic, agronomic and environmental issues. Variable rate nitrogen fertilization (VRNF) has shown promise in optimizing N application by accounting for soil and crop variability, thus improving nitrogen use efficiency and reducing environmental impact. This study evaluates and compares two VRNF solutions in two wheat fields in Belgium and France.MethodsThe first, VRNF1 relied on onsite measurement of soil nitrate using ion-selective electrode (ISE) sensors, whereas the second, VRNF2, utilizes the fusion of on-line measured key soil properties using a visible and near-infrared spectrometer (vis-NIRS) and crop normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI). In VRNF1, soil nitrate values were used to rank the fertility level of management zones (MZs), delineated by the clustering analysis of vis-NIRS-NDVI data (like for VRNF2), with N fertilization rates adjusted by 30-50%, applying lower rates to high-fertility zones and higher rates to low-fertility zones. In VRNF2, after the fertility level of MZ was ranked by examining the on-line measurements of pH, organic carbon (OC), moisture content (MC), potassium (K), phosphorus (P), and calcium (Ca), and crop NDVI, N fertilizer rates were adjusted similarly to VRNF1.ResultsA cost-benefit analysis revealed that the gross margin of both VRNF solutions was larger than that of the URNF, with VRNF1 providing up to 289 EUR ha-1 and VRNF2 up to 358 EUR ha-1 more gross margin than URNF. VRNF1 increased crop yield by up to 8%, while VRNF2 resulted in a 9.2% yield increase compared to URNF. However, VRNF1 achieved a slight economic advantage (14 EUR ha-1) in one field, while VRNF2 was more profitable in the other field by 69 EUR ha-1. Additionally, VRNF2 demonstrated superior environmental benefits, using 14% less fertilizer than URNF and 12% less than VRNF1.ConclusionOverall, VRNF2 offered better economic and environmental outcomes than VRNF1 and URNF. However, the subjectivity of ranking MZs into different fertility levels in the absence of historical yield data for the VRNF2 raises concerns, calling in such a situation for VRNF1 to be adopted in future VRNF schemes.