Damage evaluation of soybean chilling injury based on Google Earth Engine (GEE) and crop modelling

doi:10.1007/s11442-020-1780-1

Abstract

Abstract:

Frequent chilling injury has serious impacts on national food security and in northeastern China heavily affects grain yields. Timely and accurate measures are desirable for assessing associated large-scale impacts and are prerequisites to disaster reduction. Therefore, we propose a novel means to efficiently assess the impacts of chilling injury on soybean. Specific chilling injury events were diagnosed in 1989, 1995, 2003, 2009, and 2018 in Oroqen community. In total, 512 combinations scenarios were established using the localized CROPGRO-Soybean model. Furthermore, we determined the maximum wide dynamic vegetation index (WDRVI) and corresponding date of critical windows of the early and late growing seasons using the GEE (Google Earth Engine) platform, then constructed 1600 cold vulnerability models on CDD (Cold Degree Days), the simulated LAI (Leaf Area Index) and yields from the CROPGRO-Soybean model. Finally, we calculated pixel yields losses according to the corresponding vulnerability models. The findings show that simulated historical yield losses in 1989, 1995, 2003 and 2009 were measured at 9.6%, 29.8%, 50.5%, and 15.7%, respectively, closely (all errors are within one standard deviation) reflecting actual losses (6.4%, 39.2%, 47.7%, and 13.2%, respectively). The above proposed method was applied to evaluate the yield loss for 2018 at the pixel scale. Specifically, a sentinel-2A image was used for 10-m high precision yield mapping, and the estimated losses were found to characterize the actual yield losses from 2018 cold events. The results highlight that the proposed method can efficiently and accurately assess the effects of chilling injury on soybean crops.

Key words: chilling injury, Google Earth Engine (GEE), CROPGRO-Soybean, soybean, yield loss, cold degree days (CDD)

CAO Juan, ZHANG Zhao, ZHANG Liangliang, LUO Yuchuan, LI Ziyue, TAO Fulu. Damage evaluation of soybean chilling injury based on Google Earth Engine (GEE) and crop modelling[J].Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2020, 30(8): 1249-1265.

Figures/Tables 15

Figure 1

Table 1

Table 2

Figure 2

Table 3

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

Figure 8

Figure 9

Figure 10

Table 4

References 31

[1]	Angstrom A, 1924. Solar and terrestrial radiation. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 50(210):121-126. doi: 10.1002/qj.49705021008
[2]	Anthony N R, Anatoly G, Yi P et al., 2012. Green leaf area index estimation in maize and soybean: Combining vegetation indices to achieve maximal sensitivity. Agronomy Journal, 104(5):1336-1337. doi: 10.2134/agronj2012.0065
[3]	Boote K J, Jones J W, Batchelor W D et al., 2003. Genetic coefficients in the CROPGRO-soybean model. Agronomy Journal, 95(1):32-51. doi: 10.2134/agronj2003.0032
[4]	Chen D, 2017. Study on monitoring and evaluating the chilling injury of rice in northeast China by remote sensing and crop model[D]. Nanjing: Nanjing University of Information Technology. (in Chinese)
[5]	Chen Z X, Ren J Q, Tang H J et al., 2016. Progress and perspectives on agricultural remote sensing research and applications in China. Journal of Remote Sensing, 20(5):748-767. (in Chinese)
[6]	Das A, Parida S K, 2014. Advances in biotechnological applications in three important food legumes. Plant Biotechnology Reports, 8(2):83-99. doi: 10.1007/s11816-013-0299-7
[7]	Fang H, Zhang Y, Wei S, et al. 2019. Validation of global moderate resolution leaf area index (LAI) products over croplands in northeastern China. Remote Sensing of Environment, 233:11377.
[8]	Gorelick N, Hancher M, Dixon M et al., 2017. Google Earth Engine: Planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone. Remote Sensing of Environment, 202(3):18-27. doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2017.06.031
[9]	Han R Q, Li W J, Ai W X et al., 2010. The climatic variability and influence of first frost dates in Northern China. Acta Geographica Sinica, 65(5):525-532. (in Chinese) doi: 10.11821/xb201005002
[10]	Hao T Y, Wang S G, Shang K Z et al., 2010. Research progress and outlook of low temperature chilling injury in Northeast China. Meteorological and Environmental Research, 11(3):85-91.
[11]	Hellal F A, Abdelhamid T, 2013. Nutrient management practices for enhancing soybean (glycine max l.) production. Acta Biologica Colombiana, 18(2):3-14.
[12]	Jiang H, Hu H, Zhong R et al., 2019. A deep learning approach to conflating heterogeneous geospatial data for corn yield estimation: A case study of the US Corn Belt at the county level. Global Change Biology, 26(3):1754-1766. doi: 10.1111/gcb.14885 pmid: 31789455
[13]	Jones J W, Hoogenboom G, Porter C H et al., 2003. The DSSAT cropping system model. European Journal of Agronomy, 18(34):235-265. doi: 10.1016/S1161-0301(02)00107-7
[14]	Li W B, Song C X, Chang X C et al., 2019. Drought resistance evaluation of 20 soybean varieties under drought stress. Journal of Northeast Agricultural University, 50(4):1-10. (in Chinese)
[15]	Liu X, Jin J, Wang G et al., 2008. Soybean yield physiology and development of high-yielding practices in Northeast China. Field Crops Research, 105(3):157-171. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2007.09.003
[16]	Liu D, Yu C L, Du C Y, 2016a. Dynamic monitoring rice delayed type chilling damage based on remote sensing in Northeast China. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 32(15):157-164. (in Chinese)
[17]	Liu X F, Ma S Q, Zhao H Q et al., 2016b. Evaluation on maize chilling injury based on WOFOST model in Hetao irrigation region in Inner Mongolia. Chinese Journal of Agrometeorology, 37(3):352-360.
[18]	Liu X F, Zhang Z, Shuai J B et al., 2012. Effect of chilling injury on rice yield in Heilongjiang Province. Acta Geographica Sinica, 67(9):1223-1232. (in Chinese) doi: 10.11821/xb201209007
[19]	Lobell D B, Thau D, Seifert C et al., 2015. A scalable satellite-based crop yield mapper. Remote Sensing of Environment, 164(11):324-333. doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2015.04.021
[20]	Ma S Q, Xi Z X, Wang Q, 2003. Risk evaluation of cold damage to corn in Northeast China. Journal of Natural Disasters, 12(3):137-141. (in Chinese)
[21]	Pang T H, Fang Z S, Zhao H K, et al., 1983. Crop Low Temperature Damage and Its Defense. Beijing: Agriculture Press. (in Chinese)
[22]	Pang Z K, 2015. Integration of remote sensing and crop growth model for regional low temperature impact monitoring early warning and yield estimation[D]. Hangzhou: Zhejiang University, 2015. (in Chinese)
[23]	Sang S P, 2013. Study on measures to cope with low temperature damage in different growth stages of soybean, Soybean Science & Technology, 5(1):53-54. (in Chinese)
[24]	Sinclair T R, Rawlins S L, 1993. Inter-seasonal variation in soybean and maize yields under global environmental change. Agronomy Journal, 85(2):406-409. doi: 10.2134/agronj1993.00021962008500020043x
[25]	Tomar I S, Badaya A K, Vani D K et al., 2009. Impact of front line demonstrations on soybean by adoption of improved production technology. Soybean Research, 7:106-110.
[26]	Wang X L, Wang F T, Qiu G W, 1995. Application of optimizing theory to determining genetic parameters involved in CERES-Soybean model. Journal of Applied Meteorology, a01:49-54. (in Chinese)
[27]	Yang J, Ye W, Wang X et al., 2020. An Improved Method for the Identification of Soybean Resistance to Phytophthora sojae applied to germplasm resources from the Huanghuaihai and Dongbei regions of China. Plant Disease, 104(2):408-413. doi: 10.1094/PDIS-01-19-0168-RE pmid: 31790644
[28]	Zhang J P, Wang C Y, Zhao Y X et al., 2012. Impact evaluation of low temperature to yields of maize in Northeast China based on crop growth model. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 32(13):4132-4138. (in Chinese) doi: 10.5846/stxb
[29]	Zhang S L, 2017. Analysis on the characteristics of chilling injury in Oroqen. Agricultural Engineering and Energy, 48(4):181-182. (in Chinese)
[30]	Zhou L W, 2017. Spatiotemporal characteristics of maize low temperature and cold damage and its effect on maize yield in Heilongjiang Province[D]. Harbin: Northeast Agricultural University. (in Chinese)
[31]	Zhu D W, Jin Z Q, 2008. Impacts of changes in both climate and its variability on food production in Northeast China. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 34(9):1588-1597. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2008.01588

Year	Crop field	Wuchagou	Xingsheng	Chuntinge	Chunlin	Naimuhe	Xiaokumo
2014	Sowing date	16 May.	18 May.	1 May.	18 May.	28 May.	11 May.
	Flowering date	14 Jul.	12 Jul.	30 Jun.	6 Jul.	18 Jul.	30 Jul.
	Maturity date	26 Sept.	28 Sept.	18 Sept.	28 Sept.	28 Sept.	24 Sept.
	Plant density (plants/m²)	39.69	30.42	47.73	36.75	37.98	38.47
	Yield（kg/ha)	1160	1350	1650	1150	610	1050
2015	Sowing date	16 May.	16 May.	28 May.	8 May.	17 May.	18 May.
	Flowering date	16 Jul.	10 Jul.	2 Jul.	12 Jul.	16 Jul.	8 Jul.
	Maturity date	16 Sept.	14 Sept.	28 Sept.	28 Sept.	28 Sept.	8 Sept.
	Plant density (plants/m²)	47.94	35.6	38.18	26.24	25.84	28.58
	Yield（kg/ha)	980	1100	1410	1030	510	860
2016	Sowing date	6 Jun.	16 May.	6 May.	22 May.	18 May.	18 May.
	Flowering date	20 Jul.	14 Jul.	28 Jul.	28 Jul.	2 Jul.	2 Jul.
	Maturity date	30 Sept.	26 Sept.	18 Sept.	30 Sept.	18 Sept.	14 Sept.
	Plant density (plants/m²)	32.97	30.55	40.04	42.9	40.8	35.82
	Yield（kg/ha)	1280	1450	1850	1370	670	1110
2017	Sowing date	24 May.	23 May.	21 May.	18 May.	24 May.	2 Jun.
	Flowering date	8 Jul.	12 Jul.	22 Jul.	8 Jul.	1 Jul.	14 Jul.
	Maturity date	28 Sept.	24 Sept.	22 Sept.	18 Sept.	18 Sept.	24 Sept.
	Plant density (plants/m²)	43.5	35.76	27.56	36.9	40.6	52.36
	Yield（kg/ha)	1350	1500	1240	1500	750	1200

Crop field	Wuchagou	Xingsheng	Chuntinge	Chunlin	Naimuhe	Xiaokumo
Longitude (°)	124.42	124.49	124.49	124.42	124.11	124.17
Latitude (°)	50.10	49.97	49.83	49.83	49.4	49.7
Elevation (m)	486	393	380	365	381	447
Cultivar	Heihe 38	Heilong 35	Hefeng 50	Hefeng 25	Hefeng 39	Heihe 18
Maturity	Medium	Medium	Medium	Mid-late	Medium	Medium
Cultivation way	Drilling	Drilling	Drilling	Ridge tillage	Drilling	Drilling

Coefficient	Definition	Default value	Wuchagou	Xingsheng	Chuntinge	Chunlin	Naimuhe	Xiaokumo
CSDL	Critical short day length below which reproductive development progresses with no day length effects (h)	12.15	14.03	12.23	13.06	14.58	11.9	14.03
PPSEN	Slope of the relative response of development to photoperiod with time (1/h)	0.2	0.235	0.294	0.287	0.229	0.146	0.304
EM-FL	Time between plant emergence and flower appearance (day)	21	13.09	18.33	15.46	16.53	26.14	22.74
FL-SH	Time between first flower and first pod (day)	6	6	6	6	6	6	6
FL-SD	Time between first flower and first seed (day)	12	19.82	21.06	18.42	18.39	11.26	12.06
SD-PM	Time between first seed and physiological maturity (day)	26	37.56	24.5	36.63	31.27	22.25	34.33
FL-LF	Time between first flower and end of leaf expansion (day)	20	20	20	20	20	20	20
LFMAX	Maximum leaf photosynthesis rate at 30℃, 350 vpm CO₂, and high light (mg CO₂/m² s)	1.03	1.023	1.052	1.034	1.011	1.196	1.257
SLAVR	Specific leaf area of cultivar under standard growth conditions (cm²/g)	385	311.2	303.8	301	317.6	337.9	301.1
SIZLF	Maximum size of full leaf (three leaflets (cm²)	137	138.1	145.1	138	141.2	188.5	217.6
XFRT	Maximum fraction of daily growth that is partitioned to seed+shell (-)	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
WTPSD	Maximum weight per seed (g)	0.155	0.162	0.157	0.161	0.181	0.195	0.186
SFDUR	Seed filling duration for pod cohort at standard growth conditions (day)	22	25.42	24.88	24.22	25.36	21.62	21.94
SDPDV	Average seed per pod under standard growing conditions (numbers per pod)	2.2	2.415	2.276	2.09	2.24	2.397	1.794
PODUR	Time required for cultivar to reach final pod load under optimal conditions (day)	13	13	13	13	13	13	13

Town	Yield loss (%)	Town	Yield loss (%)	Town	Yield loss (%)
Karichu	21.23	Wobei	29.77	Xiangyang	24.35
Lingnan	14.64	Zhaxi	19.54	Wuerqi	31.14
Neerkeqi	22.61	Wuchagou	15.86	Chaoyangliehu	21.19
Qingsonggou	24.52	Naimuhe	25.15	Shiliudongfang	32.28
Tuanjie	19.38	Maweishan	18.34	Nuominghe	6.54
Yuchang	8.76	Kuweidi	22.58	Xiaoerhong	18.08
Xinxing	9.55	Yuejing	28.83	Longtou	29.25
Oukenhe	18.24	Kuilehe	5.29	Xinfeng	20.63
Xingsheng	28.04	Dongsheng	21.52	Woluohe	30.79
Ershili	-29.94	Xiaokumo	17.63	Tiedong	30.05
Wulubutie	9.53	Doushigou	21.30	Dakumo	21.58
Hongqi	22.65	Chaoyanggou	22.67	Ergenghe	7.97
Maanshan	18.52	Xinfa	26.92	Dongsheng	21.52
Chunlin	26.02	Chuntinge	16.09	Maojiapu	18.77