Search

A major effect of environment on crops is through crop phenology, and therefore, the capacity to predict phenology for new environments is important. Mechanistic crop models are a major tool for such predictions, but calibration of crop phenology models is difficult and there is no consensus on the best approach. Here we propose an original, detailed approach, a protocol, for calibration of such models. The protocol covers all the steps in the calibration work-flow, namely choice of default parameter values, choice of objective function, choice of parameters to estimate from the data, calculation of optimal parameter values and diagnostics. The major innovation is in the choice of which parameters to estimate from the data, which combines expert knowledge and data-based model selection. First, almost additive parameters are identified and estimated. This should make bias (average difference between observed and simulated values) nearly zero. These are “obligatory” parameters, that will definitely be estimated. Then candidate parameters are identified, which are parameters likely to explain the remaining discrepancies between simulated and observed values. A candidate is only added to the list of parameters to estimate if it leads to a reduction in BIC (Bayesian Information Criterion), which is a model selection criterion. A second original aspect of the protocol is the specification of documentation for each stage of the protocol. The protocol was applied by 19 modeling teams to three data sets for wheat phenology. All teams first calibrated their model using their “usual” calibration approach, so it was possible to compare usual and protocol calibration. Evaluation of prediction error was based on data from sites and years not represented in the training data. Compared to usual calibration, calibration following the new protocol reduced the variability between modeling teams by 22% and significantly reduced prediction error.

Closing the yield gap is essential for global food security and for farmers who face increasing costs of production. Recent work showed that Australia’s wheat growers are achieving about half their water-limited yield. While quantifying the yield gap is a necessary first step towards closing them, the next step is to understand which factors constrain rainfed grain growers from achieving their water-limited yields. Here we conducted in silico experiments over 15 years at 50 weather stations to ascertain the impact on grain yield of suboptimal practices against the ‘best management practice’ rules that were used to calculate the benchmark water-limited yields. Average national losses per suboptimal practice were: the average N fertiliser application rate – 40%; conventional tillage – 33%; suboptimal weed control during the summer fallow – 26%; low seedling density – 12%; and a two week delay in sowing – 7%. Combining two suboptimal practices does not necessarily lead to an additive effect on yield. Other factors that contribute to the yield gap include biotic stresses such as plant diseases, insects and other pests, in-crop weeds and extreme weather events (e.g. floods, strong winds and hail). In addition to calculating the impact of causes of the yield gap we investigated the opportunity to lift the water-limited yield by adopting an emergent new management practice of sowing on an optimised site specific date that is earlier than the traditional sowing window as described for the currently accepted best practice. We found that this emergent practice, matched with slower maturing varieties and additional N inputs as required, has the potential to increase wheat yields nationally by 30%. Frost and heat stress accounted for losses of 16% to 26% depending on the stress function used. Allowing for the impact of frost and heat stress reduced the yield potential of both the current and emergent water-limited yields yet it did not reduce the advantage of the emergent practice.

As a cropping season progresses yield forecasts become more reliable. Optimal management strategies however rely on early estimates of climate and yield. These estimates are usually derived from the historic range of climate variations applied to current crop conditions. Early in the season these predictions are wide ranging as they incorporate all past historic climate variability and hence a large range of possible yields. Dynamical seasonal climate models offer the opportunity to narrow this range contingent on the models having adequate predictive skill. This study explores the benefits of using a climate model over historical climate to predict wheat yield in the Australian cropping zone throughout the cropping season. We take an ensemble of daily outputs of temperature, radiation and rainfall from a seasonal climate model (POAMA) and apply a simple downscaling and calibration to align with 57 stations across the Australian cropping zone. These data are then used as an input to a crop model (APSIM) to translate seasonal conditions into a yield prediction. Simulations deploy historic weather data up to a date on which forecast data replace measured data. Here we used a range of dates (April to October) through the cropping season for the period 1981 to 2015, to determine where and when the forecast is skilful compared to using the full weather record up to harvest. The forecasts are categorised in three yield categories low (decile 1–3), average (4–7) and high (8–10) and determined to be ‘misleading’ if they predict low instead of high or vice versa. In the west and south of Australia less than 3 years in 20 give a misleading forecast in April, and less than 1 in 20 years by August. The forecast for east of Australia has less skill primarily due to a strong rainfall bias with the climate model not being able to simulate the correct daily rainfall patterns. Compared to the predictions gained from using the full range of historical climate, POAMA derived forecasts have a narrower prediction range than the climatology driven ones, however this comes at the expense of a higher number of misleading forecasts. Nevertheless, in June (August) the POAMA driven simulations have a greater than 65% (80%) chance of being in the correct or one category out, which was higher than using climatology in each region at the same lead time. The baseline set by this study demonstrates the potential utility of dynamic climate models to predict yield, which should only improve with on-going advances in climate modelling and techniques in downscaling.

Resource shortages, driven by climatic, institutional and social changes in many regions of Asia, combined with growing imperatives to increase food production whilst ensuring environmental sustainability, are driving research into modified agricultural practices. Well-tested cropping systems models that capture interactions between soil water and nutrient dynamics, crop growth, climate and farmer management can assist in the evaluation of such new agricultural practices. One such cropping systems model is the Agricultural Production Systems Simulator (APSIM). We evaluated APSIM’s ability to simulate the performance of cropping systems in Asia from several perspectives: crop phenology, production, water use, soil dynamics (water and organic carbon) and crop CO 2 response, as well as its ability to simulate cropping sequences without reset of soil variables. The evaluation was conducted over a diverse range of environments (12 countries, numerous soils), crops and management practices throughout the region. APSIM’s performance was statistically assessed against assembled replicated experimental datasets. Once properly parameterised, the model performed well in simulating the diversity of cropping systems to which it was applied with RMSEs generally less than observed experimental standard deviations (indicating robust model performance), and with particular strength in simulation of multi-crop sequences. Input parameter estimation challenges were encountered, and although ‘work-arounds’ were developed and described, in some cases these actually represent model deficiencies which need to be addressed. Desirable future improvements have been identified to better position APSIM as a useful tool for Asian cropping systems research into the future. These include aspects related to harsh environments (high temperatures, diffuse light conditions, salinity, and submergence), conservation agriculture, greenhouse gas emissions, as well as aspects more specific to Southern Asia and low input systems (such as deficiencies in soil micro-nutrients).

Research about adaptation of crops to climate change at a regional scale is based on simplifying assumptions about current and future weather and about farmer management practices. Additionally, the impacts of adaptations are usually measured only in production terms and the feasibility of implementing proposed adaptations is rarely tested. In this study into adaptations of rice based cropping systems to future climate scenarios in Telangana, India, all adaptations were generated through participatory engagement, and were field-tested with local smallholder households in three villages as well as by cropping system simulation analysis. Adaptation options were first evaluated for historical climate variability, with outcomes assessed in terms of production, profitability and environmental consequences before they were evaluated as climate-smart adaptations to medium term climate change. In an earlier study, participatory intervention at household level was used to identify and evaluate new practices. These adaptations to climate variability were then tested with the cropping systems simulator APSIM on local historical weather data. Here we test the applicability of these adaptations to likely climate scenarios in 2021–2040 by using and statistically downscaling two contrasting global circulation models to generate contrasting climate change scenarios for each location. Adaptations were simulated with these future climate data sets and evaluated in terms of their gross margin, yield, yield stability, gross margin stability, global warming potential, greenhouse gas emissions intensity and, where irrigation treatments were varied, net water use, irrigation water productivity, contribution to the recharge of aquifers and nitrogen leached from the root zone. Compared with variability in historic yields the simulated yield changes in 2021–2040 climate scenarios were modest and their direction was dependent on the global circulation model used. Sustainability polygons were used to compare historic and future climate scenarios. These polygons clearly showed that adaptation options mostly resulted in trade-offs between productivity and environmental outcomes and between competing environmental outcomes. Results that were simulated for historic weather were strongly reflected in the two future weather scenarios, leading to the conclusion that participatory action research with smallholder farmers, coupled with field testing and simulation analysis can produce practical, sustainable and productive adaptations to climate variability that are also climate smart in that they are robust for future climate scenarios to 2021–2040. We propose that sustainability polygons may be a useful quantitative tool for analysis of the degree to which adaptations may be regarded as climate smart.

Empirical yield estimation from satellite data has long lacked suitable combinations of spatial and temporal resolutions. Consequently, the selection of metrics, i.e., temporal descriptors that predict grain yield, has likely been driven by practicality and data availability rather than by systematic targetting of critically sensitive periods as suggested by knowledge of crop physiology. The current trend towards hyper-temporal data raises two questions: How does temporality affect the accuracy of empirical models? Which metrics achieve optimal performance? We followed an in silico approach based on crop modelling which can generate any observation frequency, explore a range of growing conditions and reduce the cost of measuring yields in situ. We simulated wheat crops across Australia and regressed six types of metrics derived from the resulting time series of Leaf Area Index (LAI) against wheat yields. Empirical models using advanced LAI metrics achieved national relevance and, contrary to simple metrics, did not benefit from the addition of weather information. This suggests that they already integrate most climatic effects on yield. Simple metrics remained the best choice when LAI data are sparse. As we progress into a data-rich era, our results support a shift towards metrics that truly harness the temporal dimension of LAI data.

In agriculture, sustainability is framed as an aspiration to achieve multiple goals including positive production, environmental and social outcomes. These aspirations include: increasing production of nutritious food; minimising risk and maximising resilience in response to climate variability, fluctuating markets and extreme weather events; minimising impacts on global warming by reducing emissions; efficiently using limited resources; minimising negative on-site and off-site impacts; preserving biodiversity on farm and in nature; and achieving positive social outcomes reflected in farmers’ incomes (revenue and profit). Here we used cropping systems simulation to assess multiple (11) sustainability indicators for 26 crop rotations to quantify their sustainability throughout Australia’s subtropical cropping zone. Results were first expressed via a series of maps quantifying the minimal environmental impacts of attributes such as N applied, N leached, runoff and GHG emissions of the 26 crop rotations while identifying the locations of the optimal rotation for each attribute. Inspection of these maps showed that different rotations were optimal, depending on both location and the attribute mapped. This observation demonstrated that an 11-way sustainability win-win across all attributes was not likely to happen anywhere in the cropping zone. However, rotations that minimised environmental impacts were often among the more profitable rotations. A more holistic visualisation of the sustainability of six contrasting sites, using sustainability polygons, confirmed that trade-offs between sustainability indicators are required and highlighted that cropping in different sites is inherently more or less sustainable, regardless of the rotations used. Given that trade-offs between the various sustainability attributes of crop rotations are unavoidable, we plotted trade-off charts to identify which rotations offer an efficient trade-off between profit and other sustainability indicators. We propose that these maps, sustainability polygons and trade-off charts can serve as boundary objects for discussions between stakeholders interested in achieving the sustainable intensification of cropping systems.

Global food security requires that grain yields continue to increase to 2050, yet yields have stalled in many developed countries. This disturbing trend has so far been only partially explained. Here, we show that wheat yields in Australia have stalled since 1990 and investigate the extent to which climate trends account for this observation. Based on simulation of 50 sites with quality weather data, that are representative of the agro-ecological zones and of soil types in the grain zone, we show that water-limited yield potential declined by 27% over a 26 year period from 1990 to 2015. We attribute this decline to reduced rainfall and to rising temperatures while the positive effect of elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations prevented a further 4% loss relative to 1990 yields. Closer investigation of three sites revealed the nature of the simulated response of water-limited yield to water availability, water stress and maximum temperatures. At all three sites, maximum temperature hastened time from sowing to flowering and to maturity and reduced grain number per m2 and average weight per grain. This 27% climate-driven decline in water-limited yield is not fully expressed in actual national yields. This is due to an unprecedented rate of technology-driven gains closing the gap between actual and water-limited potential yields by 25 kg ha−1 yr−1 enabling relative yields to increase from 39% in 1990 to 55% in 2015. It remains to be seen whether technology can continue to maintain current yields, let alone increase them to those required by 2050.

This paper describes an investigation of various adaptations of rice based cropping systems to climate variability in India's Telangana State. All adaptations were generated through participatory engagement and were field-tested with local smallholder households before being evaluated through cropping system simulation analysis. This approach contrasts with most research about adaptation of cropping systems to climate variability and climate change that is mostly based on simplifying assumptions about current farmer management practices and where the feasibility of implementing proposed adaptations is rarely tested. In this study, the investigation commenced with discussions about climate related issues in rice based farming systems between researchers, farmers and NGOs in three villages in three Mandals of the state of Telangana. Participatory intervention was used to identify new practices that could provide more adaptive and robust responses to climate variability. Suggested adaptations were implemented in on-farm experimentation. Fields demonstrating these adaptations were monitored and results were discussed with participating farmers at regular ‘Climate Club’ village meetings. Crop and soil data from these fields were used to locally parameterise the cropping systems simulator APSIM. Local adaptations that were trialled in the villages were simulated using local soil and long term historical weather data. In each of the case studies, a number of adaptations that were developed and implemented in the villages were shown through simulation to be successful in terms of agricultural production, stability of yields and resource use efficiency. Of the adaptations investigated, sowing rules to reduce the chance of crop failure due to early dry spells were most readily adopted and are also relatively easy to extend to other villages. Strategic irrigation of rainfed crops such as maize and cotton resulted in significant gains to profitability and stability of these crops but cannot be considered in isolation where access to water is limited. Reduced irrigation of rice resulted in over 60 mm/ha/yr. savings in water and some improvements in gross margins but this adaptation was not popular with farmers due to its burden on labour and added risks associated with unreliable supply of electricity for pumping at critical times. The reduced rice area for strategic irrigation of rainfed crops adaptation resulted in improved gross margins per hectare per year and higher net water productivity. This adaptation is most promising but will require institutional change around water use policy and more equitable allocation of limited water resources within villages. These results led us to the proposition that participatory action research with smallholder farmers, coupled with field-testing and simulation analysis can produce practical and productive adaptations to climate variability.

Closing the gap between yields currently achieved on farms and those that can be achieved with best practice and current technology in a given environment is a key strategy for increasing grain production on existing cropland. In this study, the yield gap of rainfed wheat in Australia was derived by a data rich (DR) analysis method made possible by the high density of data available in the Australian grain zone. At the national scale, the analysis revealed that Australia’s 15 year (1996–2010) average actual wheat yield (Ya) was 1.7 t/ha, while the simulated water-limited yield potential (Yw) was 3.5 t/ha; thus the yield gap (Yg = Yw-Ya) was 1.8 t/ha; and the relative yield (Y % = 100 x Ya/Yw) was 49%. The fifteen year average Ya and Yw values for each of the 245 statistical local areas (SLAs) in Australia’s wheat zone were strongly and positively correlated (Ya = 0.456 x Yw + 0.15; R 2 = 0.65; RMSE = 0.291; p 2 = 0.95; RMSE = 0.087; p

SUMMARYAustralia has a role to play in future global food security as it contributes 0·12 of global wheat exports. How much more can it contribute with current technology and varieties? The present paper seeks to quantify the gap between water-limited yield potential (Yw) and farmer yields (Ya) for wheat in Australia by implementing a new protocol developed by the Global Yield Gap and Water Productivity Atlas (GYGA) project. Results of past Australian yield gap studies are difficult to compare with studies in other countries because they were conducted using a variety of methods and at a range of scales. The GYGA project protocols were designed to facilitate comparisons among countries through the application of a consistent yet flexible methodology. This is the first implementation of GYGA protocols in a country with the high spatial and temporal climatic variability that exists in Australia.The present paper describes the application of the GYGA protocol to the whole Australian grain zone to derive estimates of rainfed wheat yield gap. The Australian grain zone was partitioned into six key agro-climatic zones (CZs) defined by the GYGA Extrapolation Domain (GYGA-ED) zonation scheme. A total of 22 Reference Weather Stations (RWS) were selected, distributed among the CZs to represent the entire Australian grain zone. The Agricultural Production Systems sIMulator (APSIM) Wheat crop model was used to simulate Yw of wheat crops for major soil types at each RWS from 1996 to 2010. Wheat varieties, agronomy and distribution of wheat cropping were held constant over the 15-year period. Locally representative dominant soils were selected for each RWS and generic sowing rules were specified based on local expertise. Actual yield (Ya) data were sourced from national agricultural data sets. To upscale Ya and Yw values from RWS to CZs and then to national scale, values were weighted according to the area of winter cereal cropping within RWS buffer zones. The national yield gap (Yg = Yw–Ya) and relative yield (Y% = 100 × Ya/Yw) were then calculated from the weighted values.The present study found that the national Yg was 2·0 tonnes (t)/ha and Y% was 47%. The analysis was extended to consider factors contributing to the yield gap. It was revealed that the RWS 15-year average Ya and Yw were strongly correlated (R2 = 0·76) and that RWS with higher Yw had higher Yg. Despite variable seasonal conditions, Y% was relatively stable over the 15 years. For the 22 RWS, average Yg correlated positively and strongly with average annual rainfall amount, but surprisingly it correlated poorly with RWS rainfall variability. Similarly, Y% correlated negatively but less strongly (R2 = 0·33) with RWS average annual rainfall, and correlated poorly with RWS rainfall variability, which raises questions about how Australian farmers manage climate risk. Interestingly a negative relationship was found between Yg and variability of Yw for the 22 RWS (R2 = 0·66), and a positive relationship between Y% and Yw variability (R2 = 0·23), which suggests that farmers in lower yielding, more variable sites are achieving yields closer to Yw. The Yg estimates appear to be quite robust in the context of estimates from other Australian studies, adding confidence to the validity of the GYGA protocol. Closing the national yield gap so that Ya is 0·80 of Yw, which is the level of Yg closure achieved consistently by the most progressive Australian farmers, would increase the average annual wheat production (20·9 million t in 1996/07 to 2010/11) by an estimated 15·3 million t, which is a 72% increase. This indicates substantial potential for Australia to increase wheat production on existing farmland areas using currently available crop varieties and farming practices and thus make a substantial contribution to achieving future global food security.

Foresight of grain yields prior to harvest would be empowering for many stakeholders along the supply chain from farmers through to bulk handlers, banks and insurance companies. Estimating Australian grain production ahead of harvest is difficult for many reasons including the highly variable year to year rainfall. The rainfall in the final months prior to harvest, can be crucial to final harvest totals. Here we explore the importance of rainfall from September 1, which broadly corresponds to the close of the top-dressing fertilizer application window, for the remaining cropping season in determining final yield. This is assessed via sensitivity analysis of water-limited wheat potential yield totals from historical climate in the APSIM crop model. At locations where the rainfall influences wheat yield, we compare three methods to forecast wheat yields that differ based on the climate data input: 1) climatology approach, which uses 30 years of observed climate data, 2) analogue climatology, which uses information from climate drivers (El-Nino Southern Oscillation and Indian Ocean Dipole) to create analogue years; and 3) dynamical climate forecasts from a general circulation model (ACCESS-S). We find that potential yields strongly depend on in-season plant available water (PAW) where years with high PAW are unaffected by the late season rainfall. Predicting the potential yield from analogue climatology (climate drivers) had the greatest skill, with smallest Root Mean Squared Error of 0.45 t/ha. This approach ranked first for 42% of the study locations compared to the climatology and ACCESS-S forecasting methods. This knowledge can help inform decision makers about the need to incorporate seasonal climate forecasts and the most appropriate climate forecasting method.

Closing the gap between yields currently achieved on farms and those that can potentially be achieved with best practice and current technology (the yield gap) is a key strategy to intensify grain production without expanding cropland. Much research has been done to quantify the yield gap of wheat, maize and rice globally and of wheat, barley, canola, sorghum and pulse crops in Australia. However, crops are grown in rotations (recurring crop sequences) that vary in their cropping intensities and in the diversity of their species. Little is known about yield gaps at the cropping system level, especially in regions where there are many possible combinations of crop types and fallow periods. This prompted us to investigate crop rotations in Australia's subtropical grains region where current crop rotations include winter and summer cropping with cereal, pulse and oilseed crops interspersed with fallow periods ranging from nil to 18 months duration. To determine the system level yield gaps, we simulated the water-limited yield potential of 26 locally practiced crop rotations for over 800 weather stations by up to 3 soil types per station. We captured the impact of climate variability with 30–35 years by 2–7 fields per rotation for each site. We expressed the results in terms of energy, protein and revenue per hectare per year and mapped the results of the optimal rotations over the cropping zone. Surprisingly, a single rotation (sorghum/fallow/mungbean/wheat/fallow/chickpea rotation; with 4 crops in 3 years, balanced between summer and winter crops and between cereal and pulse crops) was optimal for revenue over almost the whole subtropical grain zone. Using revenue as the metric for yield gaps at statistical local area scale we found, over the whole subtropical zone, a mean revenue gap of 970 $/ha/yr. This represents a relative revenue (Revenue% = 100 x (actual revenue/water-limited revenue)) of 34% which is much lower than expected from the 40–60% relative yields achieved by individual crops. We investigated whether growers may select rotations that have lower revenue than the optimal rotation in response to economic factors such as profit and risk. We found that for much of the area the same rotation that optimised revenue also optimised profit. However, for some of the cropping zone, particularly in the south western portion, a different, less intensive and more winter dominant, rotation was most profitable. Similarly, risk averse farmers may choose less productive and profitable rotations with less risk.

SUMMARYClimate risk assessment in cropping is generally undertaken in a top-down approach using climate records while critical farmer experience is often not accounted for. In the present study, set in south India, farmer experience of climate risk is integrated in a bottom-up participatory approach with climate data analysis. Crop calendars are used as a boundary object to identify and rank climate and weather risks faced by smallhold farmers. A semi-structured survey was conducted with experienced farmers whose income is predominantly from farming. Interviews were based on a crop calendar to indicate the timing of key weather and climate risks. The simple definition of risk as consequence × likelihood was used to establish the impact on yield as consequence and chance of occurrence in a 10-year period as likelihood. Farmers’ risk experience matches well with climate records and risk analysis. Farmers’ rankings of ‘good’ and ‘poor’ seasons also matched up well with their independently reported yield data. On average, a ‘good’ season yield was 1·5–1·65 times higher than a ‘poor’ season. The main risks for paddy rice were excess rains at harvesting and flowering and deficit rains at transplanting. For cotton, farmers identified excess rain at harvest, delayed rains at sowing and excess rain at flowering stages as events that impacted crop yield and quality. The risk assessment elicited from farmers complements climate analysis and provides some indication of thresholds for studies on climate change and seasonal forecasts. The methods and analysis presented in the present study provide an experiential bottom-up perspective and a methodology on farming in a risky rainfed climate. The methods developed in the present study provide a model for end-user engagement by meteorological agencies that strive to better target their climate information delivery.

To feed a growing world population in the coming decades, agriculture must strive to reduce the gap between the yields that are currently achieved by farmers (Ya) and those potentially attainable in rainfed farming systems (Yw). The first step towards reducing yield gaps (Yg) is to obtain realistic estimates of their magnitude and their spatial and temporal variability. In this paper we describe a new yield gap assessment framework. The framework uses statistical yield and cropping area data, remotely sensed data, cropping system simulation and GIS mapping to calculate wheat yield gaps at scales from 1.1 km cells to regional. The framework includes ad hoc on-ground testing of the calculated yield gaps. This framework was applied to wheat in the Wimmera region of Victoria, Australia. Estimated Yg over the whole Wimmera region varied annually from 0.63 to 4.12 Mg ha −1 with an average of 2.00 Mg ha −1 . Expressed as a relative yield ( Y % ) the range was 26.3–77.9% with an average of 52.7%. Similarly large spatial variability was described in a Wimmera yield gap map. Such maps can be used to show where efforts to bridge the yield gap are likely to have the biggest impacts. Bridging the exploitable yield gap in the Wimmera region by increasing average Y % to 80% would increase average annual wheat production from 1.09 M tonnes to 1.65 M tonnes. Model estimates of Yw and Yg were compared with data from crop yield contests, experimental variety trials, and on-farm water use and yields. These alternative approaches agreed well with the modelling results, indicating that the proposed framework provided a robust and widely applicable method of determining yield gaps. Its successful implementation requires that: (1) Ya as well as the area and geospatial distribution of wheat cropping are well defined; (2) there is a crop model with proven performance in the local agro-ecological zone; (3) daily weather and soil data (such as PAWC) required by crop models are available throughout the area; and (4) local agronomic best practice is well defined.

While the amount of nitrogen (N) contributed to agricultural soils by above ground legume biomass can be over 300 kg N/ha when grain is not harvested, its availability to subsequent sugarcane crops is uncertain. In Australia it is generally accepted that inorganic N fertiliser applied to the sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) crop in the first year (termed the plant crop) following a ‘good’ legume fallow crop that is not harvested can be substantially reduced, or even eliminated. However, current recommendations do not consider the carry over of legume N to crops beyond the plant crop (termed ratoons), for which standard N fertiliser rates are considered necessary. Based on a simple field experiment extending the duration of a soybean (Glycine max L.) fallow and two sugarcane crops (plant and first ratoon), cropping system simulation was used to provide a first estimate of how long and how much soybean N remains available for uptake by sugarcane following a soybean break crop. The soybean and sugarcane rotation plot was carried out at Mossman, Queensland over 3 years during which crop yield, plant N, and total soil C and mineral N were measured. The soybean variety Leichhardt produced 9 t/ha (±0.7) above ground dry weight, containing 301 kg N/ha (±36) which contributed to the soil N stores. After independently developing parameter values for Leichhardt, model simulations were run. The model explained 91% of the variation observed in soil mineral N to a depth of 1.5 m. Additional legume and sugarcane rotation simulations were run for the Burdekin and Bundaberg sugarcane regions. Across all three study sites the simulations suggested that legume N was available to the sugarcane crop up to the fourth ratoon. Acknowledging the limitations of this initial exploratory study, it is hypothesized that potential reductions in fertiliser application rate could be up to approximately 100% in the first ratoon, and 60%, 25% and 10% in the subsequent ratoons. These findings require further validation but suggest a potential economic and environmental win–win outcome from refining N management practices in sugarcane-legume rotation cropping systems in Australia and other countries.