JIMMA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND

VETERINARY MEDICINE

DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE AND PLANT SCIENCE

REVIEW ON PRECISION NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT: LEVERAGI

NG TECHNOLOGY FOR TARGETED FERTILIZER APPLICATION

BY

GAROMA FIRDISA
ID.No: RM/0541/15

May, 2024

Jimma University, Ethiopia

Jimma University College of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine

Department of Horticulture and Plant Science

By

GaromaFirdisa

ID.No: RM/0541/15

Current topic in Agronomy

Submitted to Department of Horticulture and Plant science, College of

Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine, Jima University for Partial
Fulfilment of requirement for MSc in Agronomy

Coordinator:Zeleke Wondimu (PhD)

May, 2024

Jimma University, Ethiopia

i
TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………Pages

TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………........I
ABBREVIATIONS............................................................................................II
LIST OF FIGURES..........................................................................................III
ABSTRACT.......................................................................................................IV
1. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................1
2. LITERATURE REVIEW...............................................................................3
1.1. Development of PA technology.....................................................................................3

1.2. Concept and Importance of Precision Nutrient Management (PNM)......................4

1.3. The 4R Nutrient Stewardship Principles as the Basis of Precision Nutrient

Management..........................................................................................................................5

2.3.1. Fertilizers/Nutrients Must Be Applied from “Right Source”..............................6

2.3.2. Fertilizers/Nutrients Must Be Applied at “Right Rate”.......................................6

2.3.3. Fertilizers/Nutrients Must Be Applied at “Right Time”......................................6

2.3.4. Fertilizers/Nutrients Must be applied in the “Right Place”................................7

2.4. Precision Nutrient Management Tools and Techniques.............................................7

2.5. Site-Specific Nutrient Management (SSNM).............................................................10

2.6. Precision nutrient management and Climate change...............................................18

2.7. Effect of precision nutrient management on crop performance under conservation

agriculture............................................................................................................................19

3. SUMMERY AND CONCLUSION..............................................................21

4. REFERENCE................................................................................................23

I
 ABBREVIATIONS

CA Conservation Agriculture
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GPS Global Positioning Systems
GRD General recommended dose
GS Green Seeker
N Nitrogen
K Calcium
N2O Nitrous Oxide
NDVI Normalized Difference Vegetative Index
NE Nutrient Expert
NIR Near Infrared
NUE Nutrient Use Efficiency
P Phosphorus
PA Precision Agriculture
PNM Precision Nutrient Management
SPAD Soil Plant Analysis Development
SSNM Site Specific Nutrient Management

II
 LIST OF FIGURES

Fig 1: Partial factor productivity of applied nitrogen (A) and phosphorus (B) as
affected by different nutrient management strategies under conventional (CT) and no til
lage (NT) based wheat production……

III
 ABSTRACT

PA technology is a combination of application of different technologies are mutually inter

related and responsible for developments of main seven sectors of PA are remote sensing,
yield mapping, variable rates or site-specific application of inputs, precision planting, site-
specific nitrogen management, leaf chlorophyll meter and site-specific irrigation
management. The 4R Nutrient Stewardship Principles are Right product: Match the fertilizer
source and product to crop need and soil proper ties. Be aware of nutrient interactions and
balance nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and other nutrients according to soil analysis and
crop needs. Balanced fertilization is one of the keys to increasing nutrient use efficiency;
Right rate: Match the amount of fertilizer applied to the crop needs. Too much fertilizer leads
to leaching and other losses to the environment and too little results in lower yields and crop
quality and less residue to protect and build the soil. Realistic yield goals, soil testing,
omission plots, crop nutrient budgets, tissue testing, plant analysis, applicator calibration,
variable rate technology, crop scouting, record keeping and nutrient management planning
are BMPs that will help determine the right rate of fertilizer to apply; Right time: Make
nutrients available when the crop needs them. Nutrients are used most efficiently when their
availability is synchronized with crop demand. Application timing (pre-plant or split
applications), controlled release technologies, stabilizers, inhibitors and product choice are
examples of BMPs that influence the timing of nutrient availability and Right place: Place
and keep nutrients where crops can use them. Application method is critical for efficient
fertilizer use. Crop, cropping system and soil properties dictate the most appropriate method
of application, but incorporation is usually the best option to keep nutrients in place and
increase their efficiency. Site-Specific Nutrient Management (SSNM) involves optimizing
nutrient inputs considering demand (plant needs) and supply (from soils indigenous sources)
of the nutrients according to their variation in time and space thereby ensuring fled-specific
nutrient management in a particular cropping season. Precision nutrient management is one
of the key components of the precision agriculture and governs all the major issues of
improving productivity, sustainability, profitability and climate change related turbulences.

Keywords: Climate change, Nutrient use efficiency, Optical Sensors,Precision nutrient management

IV
 1. INTRODUCTION

Precision nutrient management is the science of using advanced, innovative, cutting edge,
site-specific technologies to manage spatial and temporal variability in inherent nutrient
supply from soil to enhance productivity, efficiency and profitability of agricultural
production systems. It requires understanding of the spatial variability in soils (Naresh et al.,
2024).
Precision Nutrient Management includes applying nitrogen, phosphorus, and lime in a site-
specific manner (using specialized application equipment or multiple application events)
based on site-specific recommendations for each GPS-referenced sampling point in order to
reduce nutrient entry into surface and groundwater and improve water quality (Pandey et al.,
2023).

Nutrient management is that the science and practice directed to link soil, crop, weather, and
hydrologic factors with cultural, irrigation, and soil and conservation practices to attain
optimal nutrient use efficiency, crop yields, crop quality, and economic returns, while
reducing off-site transport of nutrients (fertilizer) which will affect the environment. To
achieve sustainable nutrient management goals, the “Four Rs” are used and include using,
correct quantity, right source, right placement, and right timing (4R Plus, 2020).

Precision nutrient management is one of the key components of the precision agriculture and
governs all the major issues of improving productivity, sustainability, profitability and climate
change related turbulences (Ramanjit et al., 2016).

Due to the intensification of cropping in a traditional way, the soil productivity and fertility of
small householders’ land in the world are decreasing day by day, while soil degradation such
as soil acidity, salinity, erosion, and drought is also another major challenge to improve the
agricultural yields.

Researchers have appropriately shifted to an approach of feeding the crops rather than feeding
the soil. Therefore, the aim of researchers should increase the productive potential of soil
through concurrent attention to the soil physico-biochemical properties (macro and
micronutrients and also microbiology) through following the precision nutrient management

1
(PNM) strategy (Bhatt et al., 2019), 4R Nutrient Stewardship Principles for nutrients/
fertilizers management (Fixen, 2020), use of nanotechnology for sustainable crop production
(Hossain et al., 2020), and the resource conservation technologies for sustaining crop
production systems such as promote climate smart agricultural (CSA) policies (Aryal et al.,
2020) and introduce conservation agriculture (CA) with inclusion of legumes and crop
residues (Kumar et al., 2018). Further, the adoption of CA and PNM will help in
improvement of the both soil and environmental quality at the ecosystem levels (Bhatt et al.,
2019).

The objective of this current topic is to review the importance and benefits of using advanced
technology and precision techniques in the application of fertilizers for crop production.

2
 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

1.1. Development of PA technology

Precision agriculture (PA) is considered as a paradigm shift in the management of variability

within agricultural sector (Lee et al., 2021). Precision agriculture also known as site-specific
farming is about doing the right thing, in the right place, in the right way, at the right time. PA
technology is a combination of application of different technologies and all these
combinations are mutually inter related and responsible for developments of main 7 sectors
of PA, which are discussed below (Sharma et al., 2020).

1. Remote sensing for PA: Remotely sensed data, acquired either by way of aircraft or
satellite, containing electromagnetic emittance and reflectance records of crop can provide
information beneficial for soil situation, plant increase, weed infestation (Khanal et al., 2020).

2. Yield mapping for PA: Yield is ultimate indicator of version of various agronomic
parameters in several elements in the zone. So, mapping of yield and interpretation and
correlation of that map with the spatial and temporal variability of diverse agronomic
parameters facilitates in development of subsequent season's crop control method (Sanches et
al., 2019) gift yield monitors degree the quantity or mass float to give you time periodic
document of amount of harvested crop for that duration.

3. Variable rates or site-specific application of inputs: Precision farming or website-

specific farming is not always an approach however; a number multi factual factors that
intention to increase the precision of farm management. Many interpret this as a site-specific
variant as opposed to a single entity inside a paddock. There are a variety of things to be
considered to set up a precision farming or variable charge application or website online-
precise application of inputs particularly monetary, environmental, agronomic or
technological factors (Alemaw and Agegnehu, 2019).

4. Precision planting: -Establishing superior plant populace and most appropriate spacing
among flora minimizes inter plant competition and allows maximizing seed yield. Seed rate
and row spacing play crucial position in figuring out inter plant spacing, that is once in a
while a function of planter and planter speed (Liu et al., 2018).

3
5. Site-specific nitrogen management: Agricultural intensification without restoration of soil
fertility can also threaten the sustainability of agriculture. Suitable management of soils may
want to maintain soil health and agricultural sustainability, and minimize environmental risks
like soil pollution, soil acidification, loss of soil natural carbon, and soil salinization
(Mukhopadhyay et al., 2021).

6. Leaf chlorophyll meter: Studies indicates an in depth link among leaf chlorophyll content
material and leaf N content in crops, which is wise due to the fact the majority of leaf N is
contained in chlorophyll molecules (Raj et al., 2021). Chlorophyll meters enable agronomists
to fast and actually measure potential photosynthetic hobby, which is closely linked to leaf
chlorophyll content material, crop N popularity, and leaf greenness. The chlorophyll meter
facts the mirrored image of sunshine inside the picture synthetically lively waveband of plant
leaves and might be wont to display crop N fame and doubtlessly boom N use performance
(Riedl and Riedl, 2019).

7.Site-specific irrigation management: Precision irrigation refers back to the management

of irrigation amount and frequency supported the crop want. The quantity of waters
implemented to the crop is predicated on measurement of soil, crop, and climate variables that
refers back to the repute of the plant (Pereira et al., 2020). The most critical purpose of
precision irrigation is elevating in water performance, the reduction of energy intake and
maximization of crop productiveness the use of the generation like Wi-Fi sensors networks,
cell devices, far flung sensing, and actual time manipulate and information system (Sadique,
2023).

1.2. Concept and Importance of Precision Nutrient Management (PNM)

Precision nutrient management is the science of using advanced, innovative, cutting edge,
site-specific technologies to manage spatial and temporal variability in inherent nutrient
supply from soil to enhance productivity, efficiency and profitability of agricultural
production systems. It requires understanding of the spatial variability in soils (Li et al.,
2021).

PNM can increase and maintain yields by optimizing the balance between supply and demand
of nutrients and providing more balanced plant nutrition (Bhatt et al., 2019). In general, it

4
improves nutrient-use efficiency and provides greater returns on investments in fertilizer
(Oyetunji et al., 2022). It increase farmers’ profits, either by savings from reduced fertilizer
use without a reduction in yields, or by yield increases that are valued higher than the costs of
acquiring and using PNM technology. Farmers are more likely to see positive net returns with
high-value crops, where yield increases can substantially increase profits, or when fertilizer
prices are high (Mishra et al., 2018). Application of precision nutrients as per the demand of
crops improves nutrient use efficiency resulting higher return on per unit investments.
Besides, maintain higher yields by through balanced supply; which means Use of precision
nutrients as per the demand of crops indicated that higher economic returns.PNM can increase
the resilience in the crops by increasing the efficiency of fertilizers. Precision management of
fertilizers in crops especially maize reduced the use of fertilizers that would enhance the
production and soil health that lead to decrease the emission of GHGs (Jat et al., 2021).

The more balanced NPK nutrition that comes with SSNM may lead to improved resistance to
plant diseases precise nutrient application Improved crop disease resistance (Bana et al.,
2020). Soil test-based nutrient management recommendations have served the drive of
improving food grain production, but have not only improved the nutrient use efficiency after
a certain limit. Researchers around the globe have applicably moved to a method of nurturing
the crops rather than feeding the soil, called as “precision nutrient management” (PNM)
(Bhatt et al., 2019). The PNM is one of the key mechanisms of the precision agriculture and
manages all the major issues for refining agricultural productivity, protecting natural
resources and avoiding any ecological or social misfortunes (Hens et al., 2018).

1.3. The 4R Nutrient Stewardship Principles as the Basis of Precision Nutrient

Management

Under changing climate, application of fertilizers plays a substantial role in securing the food
security of increasing population in the world. It is estimated that 40-60% of all crop
production fully depends on fertilizer application (Grzebisz et al., 2022). Therefore, to meet
future food demand for increasing population, fertilizers should be used from the right source,
in the right rate, at the right time, and in the right place as the termed as four rights or 4R
(Bhatt et al., 2019). Since, application of the right source of nutrient or product at the right
rate, at the right time, and in the right place has been closely associated with agricultural

5
sustainability (Umesha et al., 2018). The 4R concept is developed through a long history of
assistance between the fertilizer industry and the scientific community as a process to guide
the best management of fertilizers in all regions of the world (Penuelas et al., 2023). Details
of the 4R Nutrient Stewardship Principles are described as follows:

2.3.1. Nutrients Must Be Applied from “Right Source”

Selection of right fertilizer assures that appropriate nutrient for target crops to encounter the
specific objectives and also avoid the unnecessary application of fertilization (Tröster &
Sauer, 2021). The appropriate assortment of the source of nutrient depends on product
availability in a farmer’s locality, application equipment, economics, and plant requirements.
Before application of any nutrients in specific field or specific crop, their interactions and
quantifiable compatibility should also verified (Bhatt et al., 2019). Application of quality
fertilizers have a variety of benefits in ever field crops, such as improved yields, reduced
fertilization rates, and eco-friendly (Panhwar et al., 2019).

2.3.2. Nutrients Must Be Applied at “Right Rate”

Apply nutrients/fertilizers at the right rate; increase its efficiency, and increase crop yields and
optimizing farmer profitability. Therefore, for enlightening the farmers’ probability, must be
applied a balance and optimal nutrients for increasing its use efficiency and the finest crop
productivity. The concept of applying fertilizers at the right rate is to provide just enough
nutrients to meet target production and quality (Timsina, 2018). The maximum nutrient use
efficiency always shows in the lower parts of the yield response curve (Carciochi et al.,
2020). Selecting the right rate begins with first establishing judicious yield goals and
evaluating the soil nutrient supply (through soil testing) and then checking the plant nutrient
status with tissue analysis or field scouting (Bhatt et al., 2019).

2.3.3. Nutrients Must Be Applied at “Right Time”

Application of right fertilizers time, synchronizing the soil nutrients availability with peak
periods of crop demand (Grzebisz et al., 2022). To get the maximum fertilizers’ use
efficiency, first step is to understand the necessities of crop growth and development and
know the peak periods of nutrient demand for the specific crop in the specific soil. After
knowing crop growth pattern based fertilizers/nutrients demand, a variety of practices could
be properly employed such as pre-plant or pre-sowing (basal at final land preparation)

6
application, split-applications, controlled-release, fertilizers’ additives for inhibition of
nitrification or urease, fertigation, and foliar applications (Bhatt et al., 2019). For example, the
demonstrated that potato has a very high demand for nitrogen between 40 and 80 days after
planting. Similarly, the peak period of potassium demand for potato is between 60 and 90
days after planting (Torabian et al., 2021). While, excessive dose of in the soil before the peak
demand of growing plants or uptake the bulk amount could be happened a negative impact on
yield, quality, and the environment (Roy et al., 2023).

2.3.4. Nutrients Must be applied in the “Right Place”

For improving the nutrient use efficiency, it must be applied at the place or depth of root zone
of soils, where nutrients are accessible to plant roots (Marschner and Rengel, 2023). The
dynamics of soil and root interactions in fertilized areas need further exploration. The
placement of fertilizer is often indicated by the soil properties, crop rooting patterns, and
available technology (Havlin, 2020). However, during the placement of fertilizers/nutrients,
the chemical and biological reactions of each nutrient in the soil and their combined impact on
bio-availability also need to be considered (Lee et al., 2020). For example, nitrogen is not left
on the soil surface for prolonged periods due to its susceptibility to loss through ammonia
volatilization (Mahmud et al., 2021), while the precision placement of fertilizer for many
horticultural crops has been shown to be more effective than application as broadcast (Van
Loon et al., 2018).

2.4. Precision Nutrient Management Tools and Techniques

I. Optical Sensors
There are several types of optical sensors, including multi spectral and hyperspectral sensors.
Univariate and multivariate regression techniques calculated as spectral indices can be used to
interpret spectral reflectance data (Wei et al., 2021).

A wide range of optical sensors such as multispectral sensors (i.e., Crop Circle (450-880 nm)
and CropScan (440-1750 nm)) have wide spectral resolution (10 to20 nm) with a limited
number of wavebands (3-16)) normally used to define variation of biomass and leaf area
index, due to application of nitrogen, whereas hyperspectral sensors (i.e., ASD FieldSpec)
(350-2500 nm) have a fine spectral resolution (1-2 nm) with continuous wavebands (21-50),

7
which provides details of biophysical and biochemical information of crop (Thenkabail et al.,
2018).

II. Chlorophyll Meters

Nitrogen in plants is generally detected by testing soil sample and is possible by plant tissue
sample analysis. But, both these methods are expensive, time consuming, and not easily
accessible by farmers, while the chlorophyll meter is a quick decision-making tool for
application of nitrogen in crops’ field (Zhang et al., 2020). It is easily usable and no need to
analyze the soil and plant tissue sample. The most popular chlorophyll meter used around the
world is Minolta SPAD-502, which is a quick, nondestructive portable device that was
developed by Minolta Limited, Osaka, Japan (Almansoori et al., 2021). It is instantly
provided with an estimate of leaf N status as chlorophyll content (Fernandes et al., 2021).

III. Leaf Color Chart

The LCC (leaf color chart) tool is a high-quality plastic strip with different shades of light:
yellowish green to dark green. For the first time, LCC technology was used in Japan (Sato,
2020). Another eight-panel (1-8) UCDLCC was developed by the University of California,
Davis, USA, to define per cent leaf nitrogen (Bhatt et al., 2019). In the year 2013, the
researchers (Yang et al. 2003) and (Bhatt et al., 2019) of Zhejiang Agricultural University,
China, developed an eight-panel (3, 4, 5, 5.5, 6, 6.5, 7, and 8) “ZAU-LCC” leaf color chart.
The LCC score of the first completely exposed leaf is evaluated every 7-10 days from 15-
20 days after transplanting /sowing blooming begins, and a specified amount of fertilizer-N is
administered whenever the colour of crops leaves falls below the crucial LCC score.

IV. Omission Plot Technique

For attaining a yield target, omission plot technique (OPT) is used to estimate fertilizer
requirements. The omission plot technique is used to estimate the amount of fertilizer needed
to meet a yield target. In this strategy, all of the key nutrients are used except the nutrient of
interest, which is ignored. In this technique, all the important nutrients are applied, while
nutrient of interest is omitted (do not apply). The approach estimates the soil's indigenous
nutrient supply.

8
For example, all the nutrients were applied except for P, in P-omission plot, then the yield was
decreased by the indigenous supply of P (Gangaiah, 2019). Similarly, omission plot on-farm
experiment in 56 locations of India with wheat crop and found that PNM through OPT
improved the grain yield of wheat ranged from 4.2 to 4.8 t ha −1 , while accumulations of N, P,
and K increased in plant by 12–20%. The gross return was 13% higher than with farmers’
practice (Bhatt et al., 2019).

V. Using Nutrient Expert (NE) and Nutrient Management Models

Nutrient Expert (NE) and the QUEFTS model are commonly used computer-based decision
support systems in crop production for precision nutrient management. The models are
intended to take into account regional and temporal variations in nutrient supply and to ensure
need-based nutrient treatments. The NE is a computer-based decision support program, which
is generally used for PNM (Sadhukhan et al., 2023). It is a highly interactive computer-based
tool that rapidly tells about fertilizer requirement of a particular field (Ayaz et al., 2019).
Nutrient Expert (NE) is developed based on 3-5 years of previous yield, manures and
chemical fertilizers applied, realistic yield, soil fertility indicators, residue content, and
information of growing environment for farmers’ specific or site-specific fertilizer
recommendation (Schut and Giller, 2020). The model is designed to consider spatial and time-
based inconsistency in nutrient supply and confirm need-based nutrient applications (Bhatt
etal., 2019).

VI. Aerial Imagery and Site Maps

Although many researchers in the world have been worked on aerial imagery and site maps
for PNM, its application has not been established yet in many developing and low-income
countries (Ayiko et al., 2020). However, in some advanced countries, aerial imagery/sitemap
and soil survey map for PNM have been popularized since a long time ago (Bhatt et al.,
2019). Generally, these tools are developed based on knowledge of previous land use(s) such
as previous crops, application of manures and chemical fertilizers, attainable yield, soil
fertility indicators, residue content and growing environment, geologic characteristics, and/or
other sources of variation (Shahane and Shivay, 2021). The bare soil reflectance
was significantly correlated with phosphorus (P) and organic matter content by using the
aerial and satellite images (Safanelli et al., 2020). Precision nutrient management plans also

9
make use of aerial photography, site maps, and soil survey maps. These tools, which include
knowledge of prior land use(s), are utilized to make judgments about nutrient management.

2.5. Site-Specific Nutrient Management (SSNM)

Use of chemical fertilizers in agriculture has sustained the crop production to meet the food
and fiber needs of global population over last many decades. Globally, the demand of food
and nonfood commodities has been estimated to increase by 75-100% between 2010 and 2050
(Conijn et al., 2018). The role of chemical fertilizers in increasing food production throughout
the world could be ascertained from the fact that area under crop production has increased in
millions of hectares that have been shifted from the natural ecosystems (Randive et al., 2021).

In South Asia, there is only a little scope for further increase in area to be further brought
under cultivation, and there is no other alternative except by intensifying the existing land use
and increasing the productivity of cropping system to meet every increasing food demand.
Today’s situation is almost entirely different, with the fact that agriculture has become very
dependent of the use of chemical fertilizers. Farmers have resorted to the use of chemical
fertilizers, and the dependence on traditional practice of using organic manures has lacked
behind. Such a trend has resulted in excess use of chemical fertilizers in agricultural system,
which has further resulted in imbalanced application of plant nutrients. Nutrient management
practices in many ecosystems fail to achieve congruence between nutrient supply and crop
nutrient demand (Chivenge et al., 2021), which has resulted in decreased nutrient use
efficiency, the major concern for world agriculture. Different approaches for increased
nutrient use efficiency are discussed below.

SSNM is a plant-based approach, which is used to address nutrient differences that exist
within the fields by making adjustments in nutrient application. SSNM approach in field crops
was developed to increase the fertilizer use efficiency to promote balanced use of fertilizers. It
involves the estimation of field- and season specific nutrient application rate based on
indigenous soil nutrient supply, realistic yield target based on plant nutrient demand, and
interaction among plant nutrients.

This approach focused mainly on the management of field-specific spatial variation in

indigenous nutrient (N, P, and K) supply and the temporal variability in plant N status that

10
occur within a growing season and medium-term changes in soil P and K supply resulting
from actual nutrient balance. SSNM defined as a dynamic field-specific nutrient management
approach for a particular cropping season to optimize the supply and demand of nutrients
according to the differences in soil-plant system (Ranjan et al., 2022). SSNM primarily
involved the prediction of field specific optimal fertilizer rates and development and
implementation of site-specific nutrient management strategies, which account for real-time
variation in crop nutrient demand at major growth stages.

Therefore, this approach provides guidelines for N, P, and K fertilizer requirement depending
upon cropping season, crop establishment method, and nutrient input through other sources
such as residue or organic manure. To get better match between plant N requirements and
fertilizer N supply, the SSNM approach provides guidelines for splitting and timing of
fertilizer N applications at appropriate crop growth stage. Five key steps are involved in the
calculations for field-specific fertilizer N, P, and K recommendations to the crops, which are
described in detail as follows:

1. Realistic Yield Target Selection

A first step in SSNM is the selection of yield target that should be realistic, i.e., it should not
be too less to be economically unviable, and at the same time it should not be too high to be
difficult to achieve. Yield target is selected on the basis of a maximum yield potential for a
specific crop variety (Afzal et al., 2019). Yield potential is defined as the maximum possible
achievable crop grain yield with an assumption that there is no other yield-limiting factor,
except the local climatic condition. In general, maximum potential yield is determined using
crop simulation models or is estimated from the highest grain yield obtained in an experiment
for a particular site under near optimal crop growth conditions (Ngoune and Mutengwa,
2019).

2. Estimation of Crop Nutrient Requirement

SSNM advocates the generic and quantitative approach, i.e., some simulation models to
estimate the relationships between grain yield and nutrient uptake that help make fertilizer
recommendations. Since there are several uncertainties about N, P, and K requirement of
crops owing to the internal efficiency (the amount of grain yield produced per unit of nutrient
accumulated in above ground plant dry matter) that varied greatly depending on soil, nutrient

11
supply, crop management, and prevailing climate conditions and make it difficult to
extrapolate on small field scale level, the quantitative evaluation of the fertility of tropical
soils (QUEFTS) model resolves this issue, since it took into account the interactions of N, P,
and K.

Estimation of crop nutrient requirement depends upon nutrient uptake and yield target which
is estimated using QUEFTS model that provides an empirical approach for estimating the
crop nutrient requirement for a specific yield target by considering the climate-adjusted,
season-specific yield potential (Bhatt et al., 2019). The QUEFTS model guides fertilizer
application, with integrated consideration of balanced inputs of all plant nutrients. QUEFTS
model is an empirical relationship between grain yield and nutrient accumulation in plants
following a linear-parabolic-plateau model and involves two linear boundaries to describe the
range between maximum nutrient accumulation and nutrient dilution.

The model regression the yield as combined functions of N, P, and K and described the
relationship between grain yield and nutrient uptake into four steps.

1. It assesses the potential indigenous nutrient supply based on the soil chemical properties.

2. It calculates the N, P, and K uptake based on their potential supply from soil. The model
compared the nutrients in pairs. The relationship between the uptake and the potential nutrient
supply of one nutrient (e.g., N) is calculated twice, viz., first depending on the potential
supply of P and secondly of K. Similarly, P uptake depends on the potential supply of N and
K and that the actual K uptake depends on the potential supply of N and P.

3. It identifies the yield range as functions of the actual nutrient (N, P, and K) uptake at
maximum accumulation when the nutrient is in sufficient supply and maximum dilution when
the nutrient is deficient in supply.

4. It estimates the yield based on the three yield ranges i.e. (one range each for N, P and K)
and interactions between N, P and K. In this model, two boundary lines are determined, and
the model then simulates a liner-parabolic-plateau curve for estimating optimal nutrient
uptake.

3.Accounting of Indigenous Nutrient Supplies

12
Accounting of indigenous nutrient supplies, i.e., total amount of a particular nutrient that is
available to the crop from the soil during a cropping cycle, when other nutrients are not
limiting, is the most prime step in the calculations of site-specific requirements of fertilizers
(Jwaideh et al., 2022). It involves the estimation of nutrient (N, P, and K) supply through soil,
in situ crop residue incorporation, irrigation water (groundwater or canal), and an atmospheric
deposition.

Nutrient omission technique is applied to calculate its uptake. For example, to measure the
indigenous N supply, plant N uptake in N0 plot (no-N) (but with the application of other
nutrients in sufficient amounts) is measured at harvest so that N is the only growth limiting
nutrient.

Indigenous N supply capacity under well-managed field conditions can be estimated by

measuring above ground plant N uptake at crop maturity in N omission plot when all other
nutrients are amply supplied that the omission plot yield data shows the differential
indigenous nutrient supplying capacity of soils; however, yield loss due to omission of N was
higher compared with P and K, suggesting N as the major yield-limiting factor (Bhatt et al.,
2019).

4. Calculation of Fertilizer Application Rates

Fertilizer application rates are calculated based on nutrient requirement of a plant at a specific
yield target, estimated indigenous nutrient supply, and an expected fertilizer recovery
efficiency by the plant, i.e., amount of fertilizer nutrient uptake per kg applied. Estimating
indigenous nutrient supply by measuring a crop nutrient uptake in nutrient omission plots for
SSNM is not feasible on a routine basis, because it involves destructive plant sampling and
plant tissue analysis, which is time consuming and expensive (Bhatt et al., 2019).

5. Dynamic Adjustment of Fertilizer N Application

The fertilizer application rates thus calculated are rough estimates of the amount of nutrient
required to achieve a target grain yield for a particular season, assuming an occurrence of
average optimal climatic conditions. However, fertilizer application rates may differ
depending upon climatic conditions, crop variety sown, average crop duration, irrigation
water management, and crop establishment method, which are affected by timing of fertilizer

13
application in relation to a particular crop growth stage. Field and season-specific fertilizer
rates are calculated based on indigenous soil nutrient supplies, plant nutrient demand (based
on yield targets), and interactions among N, P, and K (Chivenge et al., 2022).

The basic dose of fertilizer N is generally applied in soils with low indigenous N supply and
remained in two or three splits at a crucial crop growth stage (Dhakal et al., 2021). The dose
of fertilizer N to be top dressed is based on actual plant N status determined with chlorophyll
meter (SPAD) or leaf color chart (LCC) (Bhupenchandra et al., 2021). SSNM such as real-
time N management (RTNM) and fixed-time adjustable-dose N management (FTNM) have
been developed to increase nitrogen use efficiency of irrigated rice (Ghosh et al., 2020). In
RTNM, N is applied only when the leaf N content is below a critical level. In RTNM, if the
SPAD reading is below 35, application of 30 kg N ha −1 is applied (Baishya et al., 2021). If
SPAD was below 35 around the panicle initiation stage, application of 45 kg N ha −1 is
advanced (Ali, 2020b).

In this approach, the timing and number of N applications vary across seasons and locations,
while the rate of each N application is fixed. On the other hand, in FTNM, the optimal amount
of fertilizer N is applied before planting, with in season upward or downward adjustments of
predetermined N is topdressings at critical growth stages based on SPAD or LCC readings at
a few critical growth stages (Zhang et al., 2020).

6. Soil Test-Based Fertilizer Application Approach

The general recommended dose (GRD) is suitable for the soils of medium fertility status and
with no salt problem. However, the soils differed widely with respect to their physical and
chemical properties depending upon the fertilizer management by the individual farmer and
the parent material from which they are originated. Further, the fertilizer application practices
of farmers in any region are very diverse. Farmers not only apply either over or under
fertilizer dose to the crops, but also the time and method of fertilizer application are very
erratic. Even the uniform adoption of GRD does not always ensure the economy and
efficiency of applied fertilizer, because the variation in the soil fertility status is not taken into
account while recommending fertilizer dose.

14
Therefore, the blanker fertilizer application regardless of the soil fertility status and other
chemical/physical properties may end up with overuse of costly chemical fertilizers in high
fertility soils and under use in low fertility soils (Bhatt et al., 2019).

Such practice may lead to inefficient nutrient management, particularly in soils with
contrasting fertilizer status or salt problems. At the same time, it may lead to the application
of too much of the less required plant nutrient or too little of another nutrient which is the
actual constraint in the optimum plant growth and hence the crop production.

Fertilizer application according to soil test results has been the most assessable option for the
farmers since long to ensure balanced nutrition to the crops. Fertilizer recommendations based
on soil test results are worked out by categorizing soils into low, medium, and high
categories, considering GRD as a medium class. In general, for soils testing low or high,
fertilizer recommendation for the crop is increased or decreased accordingly over GRD.
Fertilizer recommendations based on soil test results are worked out by categorizing soils into
low, medium, and high categories, considering GRD as medium class. In general, for soils
testing low or high, fertilizer recommendation for the crop is increased or decreased by 25%,
over GRD.

Recommendation of nitrogenous fertilizers is given on the basis of the soil organic carbon
(SOC) content, because SOC is known to govern nitrogen (N) availability in the soil system.
In this contest, soils with SOC <0.40%, 0.40–0.75%, and > 0.75% are rated as low, medium,
and high N soils. Therefore, for soils testing low or high in SOC needs 25% more or less
nitrogenous fertilizers, respectively, over GRD.

Soils with available P< 5, 5–9, 9–20, and > 20 mg kg−1 are rated as low, medium, high, and
very high with respect to P supplying capacity to plants. Application of P fertilizer dose is
recommended on the basis of P supplying capacity of soils.

Fertilizer P recommendations to the crops are made not only on the basis of available P
content, but the SOC content is also kept under consideration. Thus, if the SOC content is
between 0.40% and 0.60%, the fertilizer P dose may be reduced by 25% of the recommended
dose in medium P soil (5-9 kg P/acre) and by 50% in high P soils (>20 kg P/acre) with OC
0.40%. Soils testing available K < 55 mg kg−1 and > 55 mg kg−1 are rated as low and sufficient

15
K soils. In K-deficient soils, application of K fertilizers is recommended to meet its nutritional
requirement.

Soil test-based fertilizer application makes it possible to adjust (i) fertilizer application
amounts and (ii) timing and methods of application based on soil test results, soil properties,
and crops’ response data from fertilizer trials. However, soil sampling and then its analysis
are often time-consuming and laborious, and more often farmers do not get their soil test
reports in time to ensure necessary changes in fertilizer application rates for the crop to be
sown. Nevertheless, soil test results and soil test crop response correlation (STCRC) data are
highly variable depending on the quality of sampling, analysis, and interpretation (Ghorai et
al., 2023).

7. Fine-Tuning Fertilizer N Application Rates Using Leaf Color Chart (LCC)

One of the major factors for low nitrogen use efficiency is the fertilizer N application at
uniform rates to spatially variable landscapes, despite of the fact that indigenous N supply,
crop N uptake, and plants’ response to applied fertilizer N are not the same spatially
(Congreves et al., 2021). Blanket recommendation of fertilizer application does not take into
account the field-to-field variability and the dynamic changes in indigenous N availability
within a growing season. Large field-to-field variability in soil N supply lowers the nitrogen
use efficiency when blanket recommendations for fertilizer N application are followed.
Recommendation of split fertilizer N applications at a specific growth stages did not result in
a better match of the N supply from applied fertilizer with crop demand because of large
variations in crop N requirements and soil N supply. Synchronizing the fertilizer N
application to the crop N demand can result in high yield, reduced N losses, and more
efficient utilization of applied fertilizer N. Therefore, improving nitrogen use efficiency
requires greater synchrony between crop N demand and N supply from various sources
throughout plant growing season (Ullah et al., 2019).

During the growing season, fertilizer N application is fine-tuned using portable diagnostic
tools such as SPAD meter or with LCC. These are crop demand-driven, site-specific N
applications budgets that can enhance farmers’ productivity and profits.

16
Plant growth reflects the total N supply from all sources; therefore, a plant status could be a
good indicator of N availability to a crop plants at a given time. It is an inexpensive
alternative to SPAD meter that can quickly and reliably assess the N status of a crop based on
leaf color and can be effectively used for need-based N management in crop. Farmers use leaf
greenness as a visual and subjective indicator of the need for N fertilizer application and more
often make fertilizer N application to crops based on leaf greenness (Ali, 2020a).

LCC is standardized with the chlorophyll (SPAD) meter to assess the relative accuracy of
LCC in measuring the greenness of plant leaves. In general, the difference between adjacent
green color shades of the LCC is equal to 3-4 SPAD units. Therefore, LCC cannot indicate
smaller differences in leaf greenness as the chlorophyll meter does. Using LCC shade 4 of
greenness (LCC 4) as the threshold value for applying N to transplanted rice resulted in
reduced application of fertilizer N and increased nitrogen use efficiency (Rao and Das, 2023).
In China, research has shown that the same rice yield level could be achieved with about 20–
30% less N fertilizer applied (Ding et al., 2018).

8. Fine-Tuning Fertilizer N Application Rates Using SPAD Meter

A critical N level below which crop suffers from N deficiency and causing a yield reduction
(known as threshold SPAD value) is obtained from the relationship between SPAD reading
and leaf area-based N concentration. SPAD threshold value is independent of the luxurious N
consumption, because plants produce only as much chlorophyll as it needs, irrespective of
how much N is in the plant (Yue et al., 2020). Leaf chlorophyll content could be estimated
using chlorophyll meter (Zhang et al., 2022). A SPAD threshold of 35 for rice, which
represents a leaf area based N concentration (of 1.4 g N m 2 leaf area), is reported to achieve a
potential grain yield (Ali, 2020b). In maize, SPAD meter is not a good technique for early
prediction of N status, while the photosynthetic maturity is the best time for prediction of N
status, because at this time chlorophyll reaches to its maximum (Zielewicz et al., 2021).

There are several factors which affect the SPAD reading such as environmental conditions,
biotic and abiotic plant stress, supply of other nutrients, and plant density and infect the crop
variety (Franzen et al., 2021). Accurate prediction of plant N status using SPAD meter
requires an individual calibration of the relationship between SPAD readings and N
concentration for different cultivars grown under specific growth conditions and at a specified

17
growth stage (Singh et al., 2023). Although SPAD meter provides a simple, rapid, and
nondestructive method for estimating leaf chlorophyll content (Zhang et al., 2022), due to
relatively high cost of SPAD meters, this gadget seems to have limited acceptance by the
farmers. LCC, on the other hand, is a simple, easy to use, and relatively cheaper tool that
could be used to determine field-specific N requirement of crops (Chaudhary, 2019).

9. Fine-Tuning Fertilizer N Application Rates Using Green Seeker

The “Green Seeker” is a crop sensing system which effectively and precisely managed crop
inputs especially application of N (nitrogen), and NH3 (Chaudhary, 2019). The Green Seeker
system uses optical sensors to measure and quantify the variability of the crop. It then creates
a targeted prescription to treat the crop variability. Use Green Seeker to apply N (nitrogen),
and NH3 to improve crop yields and ultimately increase the profitability (Kumar et al., 2024).

Green Seeker can address field variability by applying the right amount of fertilizer, in the
right place, at the right time (Pawase et al., 2024). The Green Seeker ensures accurate and
balanced nitrogen fertilizer applications, cutting farmers’ costs, reducing nitrification and
nitrogen runoff into groundwater and water systems, and raising crop yields. Using
normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) values from Green Seeker, N Calculator
automatically calculates the best nitrogen and urea rate.

10. Using the Sensor to Estimate a Fertilizer Rate

A key use of this sensor is to estimate fertilizer application rates. Sensor measurements
combined with agronomic information such as type of crop may be used to estimate a
fertilizer rate (Morris et al., 2018).

2.6. Precision nutrient management and Climate change

Precision nutrient management is one of the key components of the precision agriculture and
governs all the major issues of improving productivity, sustainability, profitability and climate
change related turbulences (Maru et al., 2018).

Agriculture contributes 70-90% of N2O emissions mostly from N fertilizer. Precise

application reduces the GHG (N2O) emission by reducing total N application and/or timing

18
applications to crop needs, thus avoiding and/or minimizing N losses to volatilization,
leaching, runoff and in general reduced environmental pollution(Soto et al., 2019).

In developing regions of the world, fertilizer N is generally managed in the form of a blanket
or standard recommendations formulated by agronomists and soil scientists by averaging the
crop response data collected over large geographic areas having similar climate and land
forms. In standard fertilizer N recommendations, based on the expected crop response to
fertilizer N amount and timing of N applications are prescribed before planting. The standard
recommendations cannot take into account the dynamic spatial variability in N supplying
capacity of soils during the crop growth. Because standard fertilizer N recommendations
are designed to produce optimum yields in allthe fields in the region, these may lead to
excessive N application in several fields. Lower fertilizer N use efficiencies, lower profits and
increased risk of environmental degradation due to loss of unutilized N through leaching or
volatilization are often linked with application of more fertilizer than needed by the crop
(Tingyu et al., 2020). To use of chemical fertilizers, nitrogen (N) in particular, in crop
production is at the center of managing both food security and environmental problems
(Martínez et al., 2021).

2.7.Effect of precision nutrient management on crop performance under conservation

agriculture

Various nutrient management practices were trial in the Indo-Gangetic plains of India in
cereal based cropping system under conservation agriculture. Conservation agricultural
practices are widely used in this region due to higher productivity and lower cost of
cultivation but optimal nutrient management practices in cereal-based cropping system under
conservation agriculture is still poorly understood. In order to evaluate three different
approaches to SSNM based on suggestions from the Nutrient Expert® (NE) decision support
system in conservation and conventional based wheat production systems, on-farm trials were
carried out for two consecutive years in Hariyana (Choudhary et al., 2018). They reported that
total biomass yield, grain yield and profitability were significantly higher under conservation
agriculture-based wheat system than conventional in both the season. Additionally, the
Nutrient Expert® based management practices resulted in significantly higher partial factor
productivity for N and P compare to farmer’s practice.

19
The short-duration mung bean incorporated into a conservation agriculture-based maize-
wheat system increased the system's productivity by 29.3%, net returns by 38.4%, and water
productivity by 24.3% when compared to conventional methods(Barman et al., 2022). In
comparison to farmers' fertilizer practices, Nutrient Expert® based SSNM and RDF boosted
crop and water use efficiency by 13% and 7%, respectively, and net returns by 15% and 7%.
Six years long term study was conducted under conservation agriculture-based maize-mustard
cropping system with three precision nutrient management practices viz. farmer’s fertilizer
practices (FFP), recommended dose of fertilization (RDF) and nutrient expert assisted: site-
specific nutrient management (NE®) (Pooniya et al., 2021).They reported on system yields
and profitability, CA practices (zero tillage flat bed/permanent bed) had a significant and
positive impact than conventional system. SOC, soil biological properties, and system
productivity were all significantly increased by ZTFB with NE® or RDF (MGEY).

Fig 1: Partial factor productivity of applied nitrogen (A) and phosphorus (B) as affected by
different nutrient management strategies under conventional (CT) and no-tillage (NT) based
wheat production(Source: Sapkota et al., 2014)

20
 3. SUMMERY AND CONCLUSION

Precision Nutrient Management is the application of cutting-edge technologies to manage the

variability in soil nutrient supply, aiming to enhance agricultural productivity, efficiency, and
profitability. By adapting fertilizer application according to site-specific recommendations for
each sampling point, it minimizes nutrient runoff into water sources, improving water quality.
The approach, guided by the "Four Rs" principle (Right Quantity, Right Source, Right
Placement, Right Timing), integrates soil, crop, weather, and hydrologic factors for optimal
nutrient use efficiency, yield, quality, and economic returns.

Precision Nutrient Management plays a crucial role in precision agriculture, addressing

challenges like declining soil fertility due to traditional cropping practices and soil
degradation issues. Researchers emphasize feeding crops over feeding soil and advocate
strategies like Precision Nutrient Management, 4R Nutrient Stewardship Principles,
nanotechnology in crop production, climate-smart agricultural policies, conservation
agriculture, and soil conservation technologies to enhance soil productivity and environmental
quality.

Generally, the importance and benefits of advanced technology and precise techniques in
fertilizer application for crop production are vast. Precision Nutrient Management not only
optimizes agricultural productivity, sustainability, and profitability but also helps combat soil
degradation and environmental challenges. By adopting strategies like Precision Nutrient
Management, 4R Nutrient Stewardship, and conservation agriculture, we can improve soil
health, enhance crop yields, and safeguard the environment for sustainable agricultural
practices. The integration of these approaches can lead to a more efficient, eco-friendly, and
productive agricultural system.

21
Gap and Future Research Direction

 Gap:One gap lies in the practical implementation of precision nutrient management

techniques on a larger scale. While these concepts are well-documented, many
farmers still face barriers in adopting and implementing precision agriculture
practices due to factors like cost, access to technology, and knowledge dissemination.
 Lack of the adoption rate of modern agricultural practices, especially in smallholder
farming communities. Limited awareness, resources, and technical support may
hinder the widespread adoption of precision nutrient management practices.
 Utilizing GPS-referenced sampling points and specialized equipment requires robust
data connectivity and infrastructure, which may not be readily available in all
agricultural regions, posing a challenge to seamless implementation.

Future Research Direction:

 The future of precision agriculture lies in further integrating advanced technologies

like artificial intelligence, machine learning, and Internet of Things (IoT) to enhance
precision nutrient management practices. This integration can streamline data
collection, analysis, and decision-making processes.
 Efforts should focus on scaling up precision nutrient management techniques to reach
a larger number of farmers worldwide. This could involve capacity building,
technology transfer, and tailored solutions for different farming systems and regions.
 The future of precision agriculture should also prioritize sustainable practices such as
conservation agriculture, resource conservation technologies, and climate-smart
agricultural policies to ensure long-term soil and environmental health while
increasing agricultural productivity.
 Continued research and innovation in precision nutrient management are essential to
address emerging challenges in agricultural production, optimize resource use
efficiency, and adapt to changing climate conditions.
 Enhancing knowledge dissemination and extension services to ensure that farmers
have access to the latest information and technologies in precision nutrient
management is crucial for successful implementation and sustainability.

22
 4. REFERENCE

Afzal, I., R. Shabir and S. Rauf, 2019. Seed production technologies of some major field
crops. Agronomic Crops: Volume 1: Production Technologies, 655-678.

Alemaw, G. and G. Agegnehu, 2019. Precision agriculture and the need to introduce in
Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Agricultural Sciences,29, 139-158.

Ali, A. M., 2020a. Site-specific fertilizer nitrogen management in cereals in South Asia.
Sustainable agriculture reviews 39, 137-178.

Ali, A. M., 2020b. Using hand-held chlorophyll meters and canopy reflectance sensors for
fertilizer nitrogen management in cereals in small farms in developing countries.
Sensors,20, 1127.

Almansoori, T., M. Salman and M. Aljazeri, 2021. Rapid and nondestructive estimations of
chlorophyll concentration in date palm (Phoenix dactylifera L.) leaflets using SPAD-
502+ and CCM-200 portable chlorophyll meters. Emirates Journal of Food and
Agriculture, 544-554.

Aryal, J. P., T. B. Sapkota, D. B. Rahut and M. L. Jat, 2020. Agricultural sustainability under
emerging climatic variability: the role of climate-smart agriculture and relevant
policies in India. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable
Development,14, 219-245.

Ayaz, M., M. Ammad-Uddin, Z. Sharif, A. Mansour and E.-H. M. Aggoune, 2019. Internet-
of-Things (IoT)-based smart agriculture: Toward making the fields talk. IEEE
access,7, 129551-129583.

Ayiko, R., P. N. Mujasi, J. Abaliwano, D. Turyareeba, R. Enyaku, R. Anguyo, W. Odoch, P.

Bakibinga and T. Aliti, 2020. Levels, trends and determinants of technical efficiency
of general hospitals in Uganda: data envelopment analysis and Tobit regression
analysis. BMC health services research,20, 1-12.

Baishya, L., S. D. Mishra and T. Singh, 2021. Site-specific nutrient management in rice
(Oryza sativa): Status and prospect–A review. The Indian Journal of Agricultural
Sciences,91, 1703-1708.

Bana, R. C., S. Yadav, A. Shivran, P. Singh and V. K. Kudi, 2020. Site-specific nutrient
management for enhancing crop productivity. Int. Res. J. Pure Appl. Chem,21, 17-25.

Barman, A., A. Hoque, A. Bera and P. Saha, 2022. Chapter Precision Nutrient Management
as a Climate Smart Strategy under Conservation Agriculture-Based Cropping System.
Bhumi Publishing: Kolhapur, India.

23
Bhatt, R., A. Hossain and P. Singh, 2019. Scientific interventions to improve land and water
productivity for climate-smart agriculture in South Asia. Agronomic Crops: Volume 2:
Management Practices, 499-558.

Bhupenchandra, I., H. S. Athokpam, N. B. Singh, L. N. Singh, S. H. Devi, S. Chongtham, L.

K. Singh, S. Sinyorita, E. L. Devi and S. Bhagowati, 2021. Leaf color chart (LCC): An
instant tool for assessing nitrogen content in plant: A review. The Pharma Innovation
Journal,10, 1100-1104.

Carciochi, W. D., F. Salvagiotti, A. Pagani, N. I. R. Calvo, M. Eyherabide, H. R. S. Rozas and

I. A. Ciampitti, 2020. Nitrogen and sulfur interaction on nutrient use efficiencies and
diagnostic tools in maize. European Journal of Agronomy,116, 126045.

Chaudhary, M., 2019. Precision nitrogen management in cereal crops. International Journal
of Agriculture Sciences, ISSN, 0975-3710.

Chivenge, P., K. Saito, M. A. Bunquin, S. Sharma and A. Dobermann, 2021. Co-benefits of

nutrient management tailored to smallholder agriculture. Global Food Security,30,
100570.

Chivenge, P., S. Zingore, K. Ezui, S. Njoroge, M. Bunquin, A. Dobermann and K. Saito,

2022. Progress in research on site-specific nutrient management for smallholder
farmers in sub-Saharan Africa. Field crops research,281, 108503.

Choudhary, K., H. Jat, D. Nandal, D. Bishnoi, J. Sutaliya, M. Choudhary, P. Sharma and M.

Jat, 2018. Evaluating alternatives to rice-wheat system in western Indo-Gangetic
Plains: crop yields, water productivity and economic profitability. Field Crops
Research,218, 1-10.

Congreves, K. A., O. Otchere, D. Ferland, S. Farzadfar, S. Williams and M. M. Arcand, 2021.

Nitrogen use efficiency definitions of today and tomorrow. Frontiers in Plant
Science,12, 637108.

Conijn, J., P. S. Bindraban, J. Schröder and R. Jongschaap, 2018. Can our global food system
meet food demand within planetary boundaries? Agriculture, ecosystems &
environment,251, 244-256.

Dhakal, K., B. R. Baral, K. R. Pokhrel, N. R. Pandit, Y. K. Gaihre and S. P. Vista, 2021.

Optimizing N fertilization for increasing yield and profits of rainfed maize grown
under sandy loam soil. Nitrogen,2, 359-377.

Ding, W., X. Xu, P. He, S. Ullah, J. Zhang, Z. Cui and W. Zhou, 2018. Improving yield and
nitrogen use efficiency through alternative fertilization options for rice in China: A
meta-analysis. Field Crops Research,227, 11-18.

24
Fernandes, F. M., R. P. Soratto, A. M. Fernandes and E. F. Souza, 2021. Chlorophyll meter‐
based leaf nitrogen status to manage nitrogen in tropical potato production. Agronomy
Journal,113, 1733-1746.

Fixen, P. E., 2020. A brief account of the genesis of 4R nutrient stewardship. Agronomy
Journal,112, 4511-4518.

Franzen, D. W., Y. Miao, N. R. Kitchen, J. S. Schepers and P. C. Scharf, 2021. Sensing for
health, vigour and disease detection in row and grain crops. Sensing Approaches for
Precision Agriculture, 159-193.

Gangaiah, B., 2019. Nutrient omission plot technique for yield response, indigenous nutrient
supply and nutrient use efficiency estimation of rice (O/yzasať/va L.) crop in
Andaman & Nicobar Islands. ORYZA-An International Journal on Rice,56, 388-395.

Ghorai, P. S., S. Biswas, T. J. Purakayastha, N. Ahmed, T. K. Das, R. Prasanna, B. H.

Gawade, K. Bhattacharyya, K. Sinha and P. Singh, 2023. Indicators of soil quality and
crop productivity assessment at a long‐term experiment site in the lower Indo ‐
Gangetic plains. Soil Use and Management,39, 503-520.

Ghosh, M., D. K. Swain, M. K. Jha, V. K. Tewari and A. Bohra, 2020. Optimizing

chlorophyll meter (SPAD) reading to allow efficient nitrogen use in rice and wheat
under rice-wheat cropping system in eastern India. Plant Production Science,23, 270-
285.

Grzebisz, W., J. Diatta, P. Barłóg, M. Biber, J. Potarzycki, R. Łukowiak, K. Przygocka-Cyna

and W. Szczepaniak, 2022: Soil fertility clock-crop rotation as a paradigm in nitrogen
fertilizer productivity control. Plants,11, 2841.

Havlin, J. L., 2020: Soil: Fertility and nutrient management. Landscape and land capacity.
CRC Press.

Hens, L., C. Block, J. J. Cabello-Eras, A. Sagastume-Gutierez, D. Garcia-Lorenzo, C.

Chamorro, K. H. Mendoza, D. Haeseldonckx and C. Vandecasteele, 2018. On the
evolution of “Cleaner Production” as a concept and a practice. Journal of cleaner
production,172, 3323-3333.

Hossain, A., R. G. Kerry, M. Farooq, N. Abdullah and M. Tofazzal Islam, 2020. Application
of nanotechnology for sustainable crop production systems. Nanotechnology for food,
agriculture, and environment, 135-159.

Jat, R. K., D. Bijarniya, S. K. Kakraliya, T. B. Sapkota, M. Kakraliya and M. L. Jat, 2021.

Precision nutrient rates and placement in conservation maize-wheat system: effects on
crop productivity, profitability, nutrient-use efficiency, and environmental footprints.
Agronomy,11, 2320.

25
Jwaideh, M. A., E. H. Sutanudjaja and C. Dalin, 2022. Global impacts of nitrogen and
phosphorus fertiliser use for major crops on aquatic biodiversity. The International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,27, 1058-1080.

Khanal, S., K. Kc, J. P. Fulton, S. Shearer and E. Ozkan, 2020. Remote sensing in agriculture
—accomplishments, limitations, and opportunities. Remote Sensing,12, 3783.

Kumar, N., K. Hazra, C. Nath, C. Praharaj and U. Singh, 2018. Grain legumes for resource
conservation and agricultural sustainability in South Asia. Legumes for soil health and
sustainable management, 77-107.

Kumar, N., S. Tripathi, D. Yadav, S. R. Samota, K. Venkatesh and S. Sareen, 2024. Efficient
nitrogen management in wheat through a combination of conventional and nano urea
with optimized methods and timing. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 1-20.

Lee, C.-L., R. Strong and K. E. Dooley, 2021. Analyzing precision agriculture adoption
across the globe: A systematic review of scholarship from 1999-2020.
Sustainability,13, 10295.

Lee, S.-H., M.-S. Kim, J.-G. Kim and S.-O. Kim, 2020. Use of soil enzymes as indicators for
contaminated soil monitoring and sustainable management. Sustainability,12, 8209.

Li, G.-y., L.-t. Zhan, Z. Hu and Y.-m. Chen, 2021. Effects of particle gradation and geometry
on the pore characteristics and water retention curves of granular soils: a combined
DEM and PNM investigation. Granular Matter,23, 1-16.

Liu, Q., T. Cui, D. Zhang, L. Yang, Y. Wang, X. He and M. Wang, 2018. Design and
experimental study of seed precise delivery mechanism for high-speed maize planter.
International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering,11, 81-87.

Mahmud, K., D. Panday, A. Mergoum and A. Missaoui, 2021. Nitrogen losses and potential
mitigation strategies for a sustainable agroecosystem. Sustainability,13, 2400.

Marschner, P. and Z. Rengel, 2023. Nutrient availability in soils. Marschner's Mineral

Nutrition of Plants. Elsevier.

Martínez-Dalmau, J., J. Berbel and R. Ordóñez-Fernández, 2021. Nitrogen fertilization. A

review of the risks associated with the inefficiency of its use and policy responses.
Sustainability,13, 5625.

Maru, A., D. Berne, J. d. Beer, P. G. Ballantyne, V. Pesce, S. Kalyesubula, N. Fourie, C.

Addison, A. Collett and J. Chavez, Digital and data-driven agriculture: Harnessing the
power of data for smallholders. in, 2018.

26
Mishra, A. K., A. Kumar, P. K. Joshi and A. D'Souza, 2018. Impact of contract farming on
yield, costs and profitability in low‐value crop: Evidence from a low ‐income country.
Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics,62, 589-607.

Morris, T. F., T. S. Murrell, D. B. Beegle, J. J. Camberato, R. B. Ferguson, J. Grove, Q.

Ketterings, P. M. Kyveryga, C. A. Laboski and J. M. McGrath, 2018. Strengths and
limitations of nitrogen rate recommendations for corn and opportunities for
improvement. Agronomy journal,110, 1-37.

Mukhopadhyay, R., B. Sarkar, H. S. Jat, P. C. Sharma and N. S. Bolan, 2021. Soil salinity
under climate change: Challenges for sustainable agriculture and food security.
Journal of Environmental Management,280, 111736.

Naresh, R., N. Singh, P. Sachan, L. K. Mohanty, S. Sahoo, S. K. Pandey and B. Singh, 2024.
Enhancing Sustainable Crop Production through Innovations in Precision Agriculture
Technologies. Journal of Scientific Research and Reports,30, 89-113.

Ngoune Tandzi, L. and C. S. Mutengwa, 2019. Estimation of maize (Zea mays L.) yield per
harvest area: Appropriate methods. Agronomy,10, 29.

Oyetunji, O., N. Bolan and G. Hancock, 2022. A comprehensive review on enhancing nutrient
use efficiency and productivity of broadacre (arable) crops with the combined
utilization of compost and fertilizers. Journal of environmental management,317,
115395.

Pandey, V., A. Mishra, D. Singh and V. Tiwari, 2023. Chapter-6 Site-Specific Nutrient
Management for Precision Agriculture. LATEST TRENDS IN, 81.

Panhwar, Q. A., A. Ali, U. A. Naher and M. Y. Memon, 2019. Fertilizer management

strategies for enhancing nutrient use efficiency and sustainable wheat production.
Organic farming. Elsevier.

Pawase, P. P., S. M. Nalawade, A. A. Walunj, G. B. Bhanage, P. B. Kadam, A. G. Durgude

and M. R. Patil, 2024. Comprehensive study of on-the-go sensing and variable rate
application of liquid nitrogenous fertilizer. Computers and Electronics in
Agriculture,216, 108482.

Penuelas, J., F. Coello and J. Sardans, 2023. A better use of fertilizers is needed for global
food security and environmental sustainability. Agriculture & Food Security,12, 1-9.

Pereira, L., P. Paredes and N. Jovanovic, 2020. Soil water balance models for determining
crop water and irrigation requirements and irrigation scheduling focusing on the
FAO56 method and the dual Kc approach. Agricultural water management,241,
106357.

27
Pooniya, V., N. Biswakarma, C. Parihar, K. Swarnalakshmi, A. Lama, R. Zhiipao, A. Nath,
M. Pal, S. Jat and T. Satyanarayana, 2021. Six years of conservation agriculture and
nutrient management in maize–mustard rotation: Impact on soil properties, system
productivity and profitability. Field crops research,260, 108002.

Raj, R., J. P. Walker, R. Pingale, B. N. Banoth and A. Jagarlapudi, 2021. Leaf nitrogen
content estimation using top-of-canopy airborne hyperspectral data. International
Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation,104, 102584.

Ramanjit, K., B. Brar and K. Amandeep, 2016. Precision nutrient management: a review.
Indian Journal of Fertilisers,12, 48-62.

Randive, K., T. Raut and S. Jawadand, 2021. An overview of the global fertilizer trends and
India’s position in 2020. Mineral Economics, 1-14.

Ranjan, S., S. Sow, S. Kumar, M. Ghosh, D. K. Roy, S. K. Dutta and B. Pramanick, 2022.
Enhancing Nutrient Use Efficiency and Productivity of Cereals through Site Specific
Nutrient Management. Journal of Cereal Research,14.

Rao, K. G. and N. K. Das, 2023. Leaf color chart (LCC) a reliable tool for nitrogen
management in (Dry seeded rice and transplanted rice): A review. J. Pharm. Innov,12,
3974-3979.

Riedl, R. and R. Riedl, 2019. Structuring the Perceived. Structures of Complexity: A

Morphology of Recognition and Explanation, 91-179.

Roy, T., T. K. Dey and M. Jamal, 2023. Microplastic/nanoplastic toxicity in plants: An

imminent concern. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment,195, 27.

Sadhukhan, R., D. Kumar, S. Sen, S. Sepat, A. Ghosh, Y. S. Shivay, M. C. Meena, A. Anand,

R. Kumar and L. D. Sharma, 2023: Precision nutrient management in zero-till direct-
seeded rice influences the productivity, profitability, nutrient, and water use efficiency
as well as the environmental footprint in the indo gangetic plain of India.
Agriculture,13, 784.

Sadique, G. M. R., 2023. IoT based Smart Water Management, Water temperature, PH and
Soil Moisture Monitoring System for Indoor Farming. Department of Electronic and
Telecommunication Engineering.

Safanelli, J. L., S. Chabrillat, E. Ben-Dor and J. A. Demattê, 2020. Multispectral models from
bare soil composites for mapping topsoil properties over Europe. Remote Sensing,12,
1369.

Sanches, G. M., P. S. G. Magalhães and H. C. J. Franco, 2019. Site-specific assessment of

spatial and temporal variability of sugarcane yield related to soil attributes.
Geoderma,334, 90-98.

28
Sato, Y., Novel IEGT based modular multilevel converter for new Hokkaido-Honshu HVDC
power transmission. in Proceedings of the 2020 32 nd. International Symposium on
Power Semiconductor Devices and ICs (ISPSD), 2020, p. 1-4.

Schut, A. G. and K. E. Giller, 2020. Soil-based, field-specific fertilizer recommendations are a

pipe-dream. Geoderma,380, 114680.

Shahane, A. A. and Y. S. Shivay, 2021. Soil health and its improvement through novel
agronomic and innovative approaches. Frontiers in agronomy,3, 680456.

Sharma, E., N. Nigam and S. Das, 2020. Measuring gap in expected and perceived quality of
ICT enabled customer services: A systematic study of top ten retailers of India.
International Journal of Applied Systemic Studies,9, 159-184.

Singh, R., S. K. Sawatzky, M. Thomas, S. Akin, H. Zhang, W. Raun and D. B. Arnall, 2023.
Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium uptake in rain-fed corn as affected by NPK
fertilization. Agronomy,13, 1913.

Soto, I., A. Barnes, A. Balafoutis, B. Beck, B. Sánchez, J. Vangeyte, S. Fountas, T. Van der
Wal, V. Eory and M. Gómez-Barbero, 2019.The contribution of precision agriculture
technologies to farm productivity and the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions in
the EU.Publications Office of the European Union Luxembourg.

Thenkabail, P. S., J. G. Lyon and A. Huete, 2018. Advances in hyperspectral remote sensing
of vegetation and agricultural crops. Fundamentals, Sensor Systems, Spectral
Libraries, and Data Mining for Vegetation. CRC press.

Timsina, J., 2018. Can organic sources of nutrients increase crop yields to meet global food
demand? Agronomy,8, 214.

Tingyu, L., Z. Weifeng, C. Hanbing, Y. Hao, Z. Qingsong, R. Siyang, L. Zitong, Y. Yulong,

Q. Wei and C. Zhenling, 2020. Region-specific nitrogen management indexes for
sustainable cereal production in China. Environmental Research Communications,2,
075002.

Torabian, S., S. Farhangi-Abriz, R. Qin, C. Noulas, V. Sathuvalli, B. Charlton and D. A.

Loka, 2021. Potassium: A vital macronutrient in potato production—A review.
Agronomy,11, 543.

Tröster, M. F. and J. Sauer, 2021. IoFarm in Field Test: Does a Cost-Optimal Choice of
Fertilization Influence Yield, Protein Content, and Market Performance in Crop
Production? Agriculture,11, 571.

29
Ullah, H., R. Santiago-Arenas, Z. Ferdous, A. Attia and A. Datta, 2019. Improving water use
efficiency, nitrogen use efficiency, and radiation use efficiency in field crops under
drought stress: A review. Advances in agronomy,156, 109-157.

Umesha, S., H. M. Manukumar and B. Chandrasekhar, 2018. Sustainable agriculture and food
security. Biotechnology for sustainable agriculture. Elsevier.

Van Loon, J., A. B. Speratti, L. Gabarra and B. Govaerts, 2018. Precision for smallholder
farmers: a small-scale-tailored variable rate fertilizer application kit. Agriculture,8, 48.

Wei, H.-E., M. Grafton, M. Bretherton, M. Irwin and E. Sandoval, 2021. Evaluation of point
hyperspectral reflectance and multivariate regression models for grapevine water
status estimation. Remote Sensing,13, 3198.

Yue, X., Y. Hu, H. Zhang and U. Schmidhalter, 2020. Evaluation of both SPAD reading and
SPAD index on estimating the plant nitrogen status of winter wheat. International
Journal of Plant Production,14, 67-75.

Zhang, K., Z. Yuan, T. Yang, Z. Lu, Q. Cao, Y. Tian, Y. Zhu, W. Cao and X. Liu, 2020.
Chlorophyll meter–based nitrogen fertilizer optimization algorithm and nitrogen
nutrition index for in‐season fertilization of paddy rice. Agronomy Journal,112, 288-
300.

Zhang, R., P. Yang, S. Liu, C. Wang and J. Liu, 2022. Evaluation of the methods for
estimating leaf chlorophyll content with SPAD chlorophyll meters. Remote
Sensing,14, 5144.

Zielewicz, W., B. Wróbel, P. Szulc, H. Bujak and B. Stachowiak, 2021. By-plant prediction
of dry matter yields at various growth stages of maize plants (Zea mays L.) using leaf
greenness indicator in climatic conditions of Poland. Applied Sciences,11, 9513.

30