Advertisement

A simple index to determine if within-field spatial production variation exhibits potential management effects: application in vineyards using yield monitor data

  • James A. TaylorEmail author
  • Bruno Tisseyre
  • Corentin Leroux
Article
  • 87 Downloads

Abstract

As agricultural data and information becomes more abundant, diagnostics are needed to quickly and efficiently interrogate these data. Indices exist to identify sensor data with structured spatial variation, conducive to site-specific management. However, these indices do not indicate if this spatial variation is driven by managerial or environmental effects. A new index is proposed to identify perennial (or ordered row) fields that are likely or highly likely to have management effects within the spatial pattern of sensor data. This is determined by investigating differences in anisotropic (directional) variograms parallel and perpendicular to the direction of management (row orientation). Small differences are indicative of isotropic (environmental-driven) variation. Large differences indicate row and management effects. The index is derived, run on a database of 1080 simulated fields and applied to yield data from 124 vineyard blocks to assess index performance and response to different levels of variation. Simulations showed that the index is non-responsive to the magnitude of variation but responds strongly to anisotropy in the data. The stochastic variance in the data was observed to have an effect on index response and may be problematic when applied to noisy data sets. The index scores for the simulated and real-world data showed a similar pattern of response and the index was able to identify vineyard blocks where differential row management had generated differing yield responses. The index scores are continuous and some general guidelines for use of the index are proposed.

Keywords

Anisotropy Variograms Viticulture Horticulture 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the support of Bob, Dawn and Thom Betts in providing the vineyard yield data and helpful commentary on the index outputs. The discussions held with Dr Terence Bates, the Director at Cornell’s Lake Erie Research and Extension Laboratory, on the development and interpretation of the index are also acknowledged. This research was supported by USDA-NIFA Specialty Crop Research Initiative Award No. 2015-51181-24393.

References

  1. Bates, T. (2008). Pruning level affects growth and yield of New York concord on two training systems. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 59(3), 276–286.Google Scholar
  2. Cambardella, C. A., Moorman, T. B., Novak, J. M., Parkin, T. B., Karlen, D. L., Turco, R. F., et al. (1994). Field-scale variability of soil properties in central Iowa soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 58, 1501–1511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. de Olivera, R. P., Whelan, B., McBratney, A., & Taylor, J. (2007). Yield variability as an index supporting management decisions: YIELDEX. In J. V. Stafford (Ed.), Precision Agriculture’07. Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on Precision Agriculture (pp. 281–288). The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. Kerry, R., & Oliver, M. A. (2003). Variograms of ancillary data to aid sampling for soil surveys. Precision Agriculture, 4(3), 261–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Leroux, C., Jones, H., Clenet, A., Dreux, B., Becu, M., & Tisseyre, B. (2017). Simulating yield datasets: an opportunity to improve data filtering algorithms. In J. A Taylor, D. Cammarano, A. Prashar & A. Hamilton (eds). Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Precision Agriculture, Advances in Animal Biosciences, 8, 600-605.Google Scholar
  6. Mirbod, O., Yoder, L., & Nuske, S. (2016). Automated Measurement of Berry Size in Images. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 49(16), 79–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Monsó, A., Arńo, J., & Martínez-Casasnovas, J. A. (2013). A simplified index to assess the opportunity for selective wine grape harvesting from vigour maps. In J. V. Stafford (Ed.), Precision Agriculture’13. Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Precision Agriculture (pp. 625–632). The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Pringle, M. J., McBratney, A. B., Whelan, B. M., & Taylor, J. A. (2003). A preliminary approach to assessing the opportunity for site-specific crop management in a field, using a yield monitor. Agricultural Systems, 76, 273–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. R Core Team. (2017). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
  10. Roudier, P., Tisseyre, B., Poilvé, H., & Roger, J.-M. (2011). A technical opportunity index adapted to zone-specific management. Precision Agriculture, 12(1), 130–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Taylor, J. A., Sanchez, L., Sams, B., Haggerty, L., Jakubowski, R., Djafour, S., et al. (2016). Evaluation of a grape yield monitor for use mid-season and at harvest. Journal International des Sciences de la Vigne et du Vin, 50(2), 57–63.Google Scholar
  12. Taylor, J. A., Tisseyre, B., Bramley, R. G. V., & Reid, A. (2005). A comparison of the spatial variability of vineyard yield in European and Australian production systems. In J. V. Stafford (Ed.), Precision Agriculture’05. Proceedings of 5th European Conference on Precision Agriculture (pp. 907–914). The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Tisseyre, B., & McBratney, A. B. (2008). A technical opportunity index based on mathematical morphology for site-specific management: an application to viticulture. Precision Agriculture, 9(1–2), 101–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Whelan, B., McBratney, A. & Viscarra Rossel, R. (1996). Spatial Prediction for Precision Agriculture. In P.C. Robert, R.H. Rust & W.E. Larson (eds). Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Precision Agriculture., Madison, WI, USA: CSSA/ASA/SSSA. pp. 331–342.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UMR ITAP, Montpellier SupAgro, IrsteaUniversity of MontpellierMontpellierFrance
  2. 2.SMAGMontpellierFrance

Personalised recommendations