Proceedings
Authors
| Filter results4 paper(s) found. |
|---|
1. Comparison of Active and Passive Spectral Sensors in Discriminating Biomass Parameters and Nitrogen Status in Wheat CultivarsSeveral sensor systems are available for ground-based remote sensing in crops. Vegetation indices of multiple active and passive sensors have seldom been compared in determining plant health. This study was aimed to compare active and passive sensing systems in terms of their ability to recognize agronomic parameters. One bi-directional passive radiometer (BDR) and three active sensors (Crop Circle, GreenSeeker, and an active flash sensor (AFS)) were tested for their ability to assess six destructively... B. Mistele, U. Schmidhalter, K. Erdle |
2. Spectral High-Throughput Assessments Of Phenotypic Differences In Spike Development, Biomass And Nitrogen Partitioning During Grain Filling Of Wheat Under High Yielding Western European ConditionsSingle plant traits such as green biomass, spike dry weight, biomass and nitrogen (N) transfer to grains are important traits for final grain yield. However, methods to assess these traits are laborious and expensive. Spectral reflectance measurements allow researchers to assess cultivar differences of yield-related plant traits and translocation parameters that are affected by different genetic material and varying amounts of available N. In a field experiment, six high-yielding wheat cultivars... U. Schmidhalter, K. Erdle |
3. Net Returns and Production Use Efficiency for Optical Sensing and Variable Rate Nitrogen Technologies in Cotton ProductionThis research evaluated the profitability and N use efficiency of real time on-the-go optical sensing measurements (OPM) and variable-rate technologies (VRT) to manage spatial variability in cotton production in the Mississippi River Basin states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee. Two forms of OPM and VRT and the existing farmer practice (FP) were used to determine N fertilizer rates applied to cotton on farm fields in the four states. Changes in yields and N rates due to OPM... J.A. Larson, M. Stefanini, D.M. Lambert, X. Yin, C.N. Boyer, J.J. Varco, P.C. Scharf , B.S. Tubaña, D. Dunn, H.J. Savoy, M.J. Buschermohle, D.D. Tyler |
4. Barriers to Adoption of Smart Farming Technologies in GermanyThe number of smart farming technologies available on the market is growing rapidly. Recent surveys show that despite extensive research efforts and media coverage, adoption of smart farming technologies is still lower than expected in Germany. Media analysis, a multi stakeholder workshop, and the Adoption and Diffusion Outcome Prediction Tool (ADOPT) (Kuehne et al. 2017) were applied to analyze the underlying adoption barriers that explain the low to moderate adoption levels of smart farming... M. Gandorfer, S. Schleicher, K. Erdle |