Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Spatial variation in tree characteristics and yield in a pear orchard

  • Published:
Precision Agriculture Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We examined the spatial structure of fruit yield, tree size, vigor, and soil properties for an established pear orchard using Moran’s I, geographically weighted regression (GWR) and variogram analysis to determine potential scales of the factors affecting spatial variation. The spatial structure differed somewhat between the tree-based measurements (yield, size and vigor) and the soil properties. Yield, trunk cross-sectional area (TCSA) and normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI, used as a surrogate for vigor) were strongly spatially clustered as indicated by the global Moran’s I for these measurements. The autocorrelation between trees (determined by applying a localized Moran’s I) was greater in some areas than others, suggesting possible management by zones. The variogram ranges for TCSA and yield were 30–45 m, respectively, but large nugget variances indicated considerable variability from tree to tree. The variogram ranges of NDVI varied from about 14–27 m. The soil properties copper, iron, organic matter and total exchange capacity (TEC) were spatially structured, with longer variogram ranges than those of the tree characteristics: 31–95 m. Boron, pH and zinc were not spatially correlated. The GWR analyses supported the results from the other analyses indicating that assumptions of strict stationarity might be violated, so regression models fitted to the entire dataset might not be fitted optimally to spatial clusters of the data.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anselin, L. (1995). Local indicators of spatial association—LISA. Geographical Analysis, 27, 93–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anselin, L., & Kelejian, H. H. (1997). Testing for spatial error autocorrelation in the presence of endogenous regressors. International Regional Science Review, 20, 153–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beran, R., & Hall, P. (1992). Estimating coefficient distributions in random coefficient regressions. Annals of Statistics, 20, 1970–1984.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bramley, R. G. V., & Hamilton, R. P. (2004). Understanding variability in winegrape production systems. 1. Within vineyard variation in yield over several vintages. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 10, 32–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunsdon, C., Fotheringham, S., & Charlton, M. (1998). Geographically weighted regression-modelling spatial non-stationarity. The Statistician, 47, 431–443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castrignanò, A., Buttafuoco, G., & Puddu, R. (2008). Multi-scale assessment of the risk of soil salinization in an area of south-eastern Sardinia (Italy). Precision Agriculture, 9, 17–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cliff, A. D., & Ord, J. K. (1981). Spatial properties: Models and applications (pp. 19–21). London, England: Pion.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cressie, N. A. C. (1993). Statistics for spatial data, revised edition. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, C. V., & Journel, A. G. (1998). GSLIB: Geostatistical software library and user’s guide. New York, USA: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fotheringham, S. A., Brunsdon, C., & Charlton, M. (2000). Quantitative geography, perspectives on spatial data analysis. London, England: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fotheringham, S. A., Brunsdon, C., & Charlton, M. (2002). Geographically weighted regression: The analysis of spatially varying relationships. Chichester, England: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hope, A. C. A. (1968). A simplified Monte Carlo significance test procedure. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, 3, 582–598.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurvitch, C. M., Siminoff, J. S., & Tsai, C. L. (1998). Smoothing parameter selection in nonparametric regression using an improved Akaike information criterion. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, 60, 271–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, L. F., Roczen, D. E., Youkhana, S. K., Nemani, R. R., & Bosch, D. F. (2003). Mapping vineyard leaf area with multispectral satellite imagery. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 38, 33–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerry, R., & Oliver, M. A. (2007). Comparing sampling needs for variograms of soil properties computed by the method of moments and residual maximum likelihood. Geoderma, 140, 383–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lahiri, S. N., Lee, Y., & Cressie, N. (2002). On asymptotic distribution and asymptotic efficiency of least squares estimators of spatial variogram parameters. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 103, 65–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamb, D. W., Weedon, M. M., & Bramley, R. G. V. (2004). Using remote sensing to predict grape phenolics and colour at harvest in a Cabernet Sauvignon vineyard: Timing observations against vine phenology and optimising image resolution. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 10, 46–54.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Matheron, G. (1963). Principles of geostatistics. Economic Geology, 58, 1246–1266.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Matheron, G. (1965). Les variables régionalisées et leur estimation. Paris: Masson et Cie.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moran, P. A. P. (1948). The interpretation of statistical maps. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, 10, 243–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oregon State University. (2005) Archived climate data from Hood River Exp’l Station. http://www.ocs.oregonstate.edu/index.html

  • Pardo-Igúzquiza, E. (1997). MLREML: A computer program for the inference of spatial covariance parameters by maximum likelihood and restricted maximum likelihood. Computers and Geosciences, 23, 153–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pardo-Igúzquiza, E. (1998). Inference of spatial indicator covariance parameters by maximum likelihood using MLREML. Computers and Geosciences, 24, 453–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne, R. W., Murray, D. A., Harding, S. A., Baird, D. B., & Soutar, D. M. (2008). GenStat for windows (11th Edition) introduction. Hemel Hempstead, England: VSN International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plant, R. E. (2001). Site-specific management: The application of information technology to crop production. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 30, 9–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pozdnyakova, L., Gimenez, D., & Oudemans, P. V. (2005). Spatial analysis of cranberry yield at three scales. Agronomy Journal, 97, 49–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rouse, J. W., Haas, R. H., Schell, J. A., Deering, D. W., & Harlan, J. C. (1974). Monitoring the vernal advancements and retrogradation of natural vegetation. Greenbelt, MD: NASA/GSFC final report, 371 pp.

  • Schabenberger, O., & Gotway, C. A. (2005a). Statistical methods for spatial data analysis. Chapter 2: Some theory on random fields (p. 43). Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schabenberger, O., & Gotway, C. A. (2005b). Statistical methods for spatial data analysis. Chapter 8: Non-stationary covariance (pp. 425–426). Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tumbo, S. D., Whitney, J. D., Miller, W. M., & Wheaton, T. A. (2002). Development and testing of a citrus yield monitor. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 18, 399–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, C., Färe, R., & Seavert, C. F. (2006). Revenue capacity efficiency of pear trees and its decomposition. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science, 131, 32–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whelan, B. M., & McBratney, A. B. (2001). The ‘‘null hypothesis’’ of precision agriculture management. Precision Agriculture, 2, 265–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitney, J. D., Ling, Q., Wheaton, T. A., & Miller, W. M. (2001a). A DGPS yield monitoring system for Florida citrus. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 17, 115–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitney, J. D., Ling, Q., Wheaton, T. A., & Miller, W. M. (2001b). A citrus harvesting labor tracking and yield mapping system. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 17, 121–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaman, Q.-U., & Schumann, A. W. (2006). Nutrient management zones for citrus based on variation in soil properties and tree performance. Precision Agriculture, 7, 45–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Funding for this research came from the USDA CSREES Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems (IFAFS) Grant No. 2001-52103-11323. The satellite imagery utilized in this work was acquired through the NASA Scientific Data Purchase by staff at the NASA John C. Stennis Space Center Earth Science Applications Directorate. The authors are grateful to Dr. Frank Yin of the University of Tennessee, Department of Plant Sciences for the use of soils data from the research site. We are also indebted to Professor Margaret Oliver for the generous assistance in variogram analysis, and all of the reviewers who provided their perspectives on the work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eileen M. Perry.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Perry, E.M., Dezzani, R.J., Seavert, C.F. et al. Spatial variation in tree characteristics and yield in a pear orchard. Precision Agric 11, 42–60 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-009-9113-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-009-9113-5

Keywords

Navigation