Open Journal Systems

Embracing smart irrigation management techniques empowers growers to irrigate with greater efficiency, thereby promoting sustainable agricultural production. In this context, growers often rely on crop evapotranspiration (ETc) as a key factor in making informed irrigation decisions, underscoring the significance of accurately determining and spatially mapping crop water status. Technological progress, exemplified by the emergence of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), has brought about a revolutionary shift in agricultural monitoring. UAV platforms can capture high-resolution images with centimeter-level spatial accuracy and offer higher temporal coverage compared to satellite imagery. Considering these advancements, this study introduces a robust method for classifying water stress in cotton using a compact UAV platform and convolutional neural networks (CNN). The experiment was conducted at the USDA-ARS Cropping Systems Research Laboratory (CSRL) in Lubbock, Texas, where the cotton field was divided into 12 drip zones. The study included three replications to evaluate four irrigation treatments: “rainfed”, “full irrigation”, “percent deficit of full irrigation”, and “time delay of full irrigation”. The results demonstrated that the CNN model successfully classified the cotton water stress using the UAV-based RGB image, achieving an overall best prediction accuracy of approximately 91%. By segmenting the original cotton images into separate canopy and soil areas using morphological image processing methods, the authors also isolated and analyzed the individual contributions of these components to cotton water stress. Additionally, a random forest classifier revealed the relative importance of different image features in the classification process through feature importance analysis. These findings highlighted the state-of-the-art performance of the proposed system in cotton water stress classification and provided valuable insights into the key image features contributing to accurate classification. The authors concluded that integrating UAV-based RGB imagery and CNN models had great potential for assessing water stress in cotton.

A new approach to measure spatial variability of soil parameters and field technique to test-value specific fertilizer

Information on the distribution of soil properties is important to know the status of nutrients in the soils based on which fertilizer nutrients are recommended. Given the variability of nutrients in the soils, making a site-specific fertilizer recommendation seems to be a compelling work. To determine the spatial variability of soil nutrients and to make judicious and precise fertilizer recommendations, new measures are designed with this study. These measures are tested against the soil samples (n = 43) for total nitrogen (N), organic matter (OM), phosphorus (P2O5), and potassium (K2O) in the study area. The descriptive statistical analysis indicated an average of low nitrogen and organic matter, while phosphorus was found to be very high and the level of potassium was high. The spread of nutrients across the data sets, however, included low, medium, high, and very high levels of ratings. The Deviation Square Index was developed and applied for the variability measurement and found that the largest variation was with phosphorus distribution, followed by potassium, nitrogen, and organic matter. The coefficient of variation (CV%) analysis also exhibited similar trends in nutrient distributions. Nitrogen was the main determinant explaining the variations in rice yield, while phosphorus and potash were negatively related to the yield. An index of fertilizer nutrient recommendation called Test-Value Specific Dose (TVSD) was developed and used to calculate the nutrient recommendation for each sampled location. This new method gave easy and more accurate doses of fertilizer over the blanket recommendation to fit the variations across the soil samples.

Herbicides Roundup (Glyphosate) and Paraquat (Gramoxone) as chemical ripeners for sugarcane variety SP70-1143 (A case study at Debel Khozaie Agro-Industrial Co.)

Farideh Yarahmadi, Mohammad Mehdi Motiei, Lotfollah Abdollahi, Mojtaba Abdi Karamvand

Article ID: 2536
Vol 4, Issue 1, 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54517/ama.v4i1.2536
VIEWS - 48 (Abstract)

Abstract

In the Khuzestan province of Iran, sugarcane harvesting is normally carried out between the early November and March periods, when rain and frost risks occur. This results in delayed harvesting and reduced profitability due to cane deterioration and a reduction in cane sucrose content. Management strategies such as the application of chemical ripeners were hypothesized to tackle such challenges by harvesting the crop earlier when the natural ripening condition was poor. Consequently, paraquat and roundup herbicides were applied as chemical ripeners to investigate the effect of their application time and rate on accelerating the ripening quality of the sugar cane variety SP70-1143 using a split-plot design. The treatments were control (unsprayed) [T0]; 1.0 Lha⁻¹ Paraquat (250 ppm) applied 8 weeks before harvesting (8WBH) [T1]; 0.8 Lha⁻¹ Roundup (200 ppm) applied 8WBH [T2]; 1.0 Lha⁻¹ Paraquat (250 ppm) applied 5 weeks before harvesting (5WBH) [T3], and 0.8 Lha⁻¹ Roundup (200 ppm) applied 5WBH [T4]. The results indicated that the glyphosate application treatments T2 and T4 induced a significant improvement in the sugarcane juice quality through an increase in Brix%, Pol%, %purity, and commercial cane sugar (CCS%) starting 1 week after their application. The results also confirmed the feasibility of an earlier harvesting operation on November 1st, one month before normal harvesting time in the study area, without significant loss of sucrose by application of 0.8 Lha⁻¹ Glyphosate (roundup), 8WBH.

Keywords

chemical ripener; paraquat herbicide; Roundup herbicide; sugarcane

Full Text:

PDF

References

1. Marin FR, Rattalino Edreira JI, Andrade JF, et al. Sugarcane yield and yield components as affected by harvest time. Sugar Tech 2021; 23(4): 819–826. doi: 10.1007/s12355-020-00945-5

2. McDonald L, Morgan T, Jackson P. The effect of ripeners on the CCS of 47 sugarcane varieties in the Burdekin. In: Proceedings of the 2001 Conference of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists; 1–4 May 2001; Mackay, Queensland, Australia.

3. Legendre BL. Ripening of sugarcane: Effects of sunlight, temperature, and rainfall. Crop Science 1975; 15(3): 349–352. doi: 10.2135/cropsci1975.0011183x001500030020x

4. Silva M, Caputo M. Ripening and the use of ripeners for better sugarcane management. In: Crop Management: Cases and Tools for Higher Yield and Sustainability. InTech; 2012. pp. 2–24.

5. Clowes M. Early and late season chemical ripening of sugarcane. Proceedings of The South African Sugar Technologists’ Association 1978; 52: 160–165.

6. Rostron H. Chemical ripening of sugarcane with Fusilade Super. Proceedings of The South African Sugar Technologists’ Association 1985; 59: 168–175.

7. Morgan T, Jackson P, McDonald L, et al. Chemical ripeners increase early season sugar content in a range of sugarcane varieties. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 2007; 58(3): 233. doi: 10.1071/ar06018

8. Donaldson RA. Effects of ethephon applied to two sugarcane varieties to prevent flowering. Proceedings of The South African Sugar Technologists’ Association 1996; 70: 38–41.

9. Dalley CD, Richard EP. Herbicides as ripeners for sugarcane. Weed Science 2010; 58(3): 329–333. doi: 10.1614/ws-d-09-00001.1

10. Solomon S, Shahi HN, Duttamajumder S, et al. Effect of Ethephon on sugarcane grown under sub-tropical climates. Proceedings of International Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 2001; 24: 174–176.

11. van Heerden PDR. Evaluation of Trinexapac-ethyl (Moddus®) as a new chemical ripener for the South African sugarcane industry. Sugar Tech 2013. doi: 10.1007/s12355-013-0278-x

12. Millhollon R, Legendre B. Growth and yield response of Louisiana sugarcane cultivars to annual preharvest treatments with the ripener glyphosate. Sugar Cane International 2000; 18: 5–9.

13. Resende PAP, Soares JE, Hudetz M. Moddus (R), a plant growth regulator and management tool for sugarcane production in Brazil. International Sugar Journal 2001; 103(1225): 2–6.

14. Karmollachaab A, Bakhshandeh A, Moradi Telavat MR, et al. Sugarcane yield and technological ripening responses to chemical ripeners. Sugar Tech 2015; 18(3): 285–291. doi: 10.1007/s12355-015-0400-3

15. Ayele N, Tana T, Van Heerden PDR, et al. Ripening response of sugarcane varieties to chemical ripeners and economic benefits during the early period of harvesting at Wonji-shoa and Metahara sugarcane plantations, Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. International Journal of Agronomy 2021; 2021: 1–9. doi: 10.1155/2021/6645913

16. Donaldson RA. Effects of various rates of Fusilade Super as a ripener on the sugarcane variety N-14. Proceedings of the South African Sugar Technologists’ Association 1989; 63: 167–173.

17. Dusky J, Alvarez J. Optimal harvesting time after ripener application in sugar cane. Sugar Cane 1986; 5: 1–3.

18. Bennett P, Montes G. Effect of glyphosate formulation on sugarcane ripening. International Sugar Journal 2003; 66: 22.

19. Viator BJ, Viator C, Jackson W, et al. Evaluation of potassium-based ripeners as an alternative to glyphosate and the effects of 2,4-d on herbicidal cane ripening. The American Society of Sugar Cane Technologists Journal 2004; 24: 98–102.

20. Leite GHP, Crusciol CAC. Crusciol, Growth regulators in the development and productivity of sugarcane. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira 2008; 43(8): 995–1001. doi: 10.1590/s0100-204x2008000800007

21. Viana RDS, Silva PH, Mutton MA, et al. Effects on the application of chemical ripeners on the culture of sugarcane (Saccharum spp.), SP81-3250 variety. Acta Scientiarum Agronomy 2008; 30(1). doi: 10.4025/actasciagron. v30i1.1130

22. Staff SS. Keys to Soil Taxonomy, 12th ed. USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service; 2014.

23. Steel RG, Torrie JH. Principle and Procedures of Statistic: A Biometrical Approach. McGraw-Hill; 1980.

24. Chen JC, Chou CC. Cane Sugar Handbook: A Manual for Cane Sugar Manufacturers and Their Chemists. John Wiley & Sons; 1993.

25. Fernandes AC. Calculations in the Sugarcane Agroindustry (Portuguese), 3rd ed. STAB, Piracicaba; 2011.

26. Vasconcelos JN. Ethanol ermentation (Portuguese). In: Santos F, Borém A, Caldas C (editors). Sugarcane Bioenergy, Sugar and Alcohol-Technologies and PerspectivesI (Portuguese). Suprema; 2010. pp. 401–403.

27. Kingston G, Rixon CM. Ripening response of twelve sugarcane cultivars to MODDUS® (trin-exapac ethyl). In: Proceedings of the 2007 Conference of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists; 8–11 May 2007; Cairns, Queensland, Australia.

28. Inman-Bamber N, Jackson P, Bonnett G, Morgan T. Have we reached peak CCS? International Sugar Journal 2011; 113: 798–803.

29. BSES. Laboratory manual for Australian sugar mills, Volume 2. Available online: https://sugarresearch.com.au/sugar_files/2017/02/Milling-laboratory-manual.pdf (accessed on 8 June 2023).

30. Kouamé KD, Péné BC, N’guessan AC, et al. Effect of glyphosate used as a sugarcane chemical ripener in Cte dIvoire. African Journal of Plant Science 2017; 11(8): 341–350. doi: 10.5897/ajps2017.1570

31. Orgeron AJ. Sugarcane Growth, Sucrose Content, and Yield Response to the Ripeners Glyphosate and Trinexapac-Ethyl. Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College; 2012.

32. Orgeron A, Gravois K, Spaunhorst D. Sugarcane Ripener Recommendations for 2020. LSU AgCenter Sugar Research Station; 2020.

33. Alexander A. Efficiency of chemical ripener action in sugarcane. v. superior efficiency of CP 70139 (Monsanto) in direct comparisons with Polaris. Journal of Agriculture of The University of Puerto Rico 1969; 61: 160–169.

Refbacks

There are currently no refbacks.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).

Editor-in-Chief

Prof. Zhengjun Qiu

Zhejiang University, China

Honorary Editor-in-Chief

Cheng Sun

Academician of World Academy of Productivity Science; Executive Chairman, World Confederation of Productivity Science China Chapter, China

News & Announcements

2024-05-01

Notice on the prohibition of using AI techniques to generate papers!

This journal values human initiative and intelligence, and the employment of AI technologies to write papers that replace the human mind is expressly prohibited. When there is a suspicious submission that uses AI tools to quickly piece together and generate research results, the editorial board of the journal will reject the article, and all journals under the publisher's umbrella will prohibit all authors from submitting their articles.

Readers and authors are asked to exercise caution and strictly adhere to the journal's policy regarding the usage of Artificial Intelligence Generated Content (AIGC) tools.

2024-01-14

We are recruiting Editorial Team Members

Advances in Modern Agriculture (AMA) is looking for members of the Editorial Board.

2023-12-28

Notice on the change of publication frequency

The publication frequency of Advances in Modern Agriculture is Quarterly since 2024, that means the journal will publish 4 issues per year from 2024 onwards.

More Announcements...

Article Tools

Indexing metadata

How to cite item

Review policy