Skip to main content
Log in

Automatic harmonization of heterogeneous agronomic and environmental spatial data

  • Published:
Precision Agriculture Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The analysis and mapping of agronomic and environmental spatial data require observations to be comparable. Heterogeneous spatial datasets are those for which the observations of different datasets cannot be directly compared because they have not been collected under the same set of acquisition conditions, for instance within the same time period (if the variable of interest varies across time), with consistent sensors or under similar management practices (if the management practices impact the measured value) among others. When heterogeneous acquisition conditions take place, there is a need for harmonization procedures to make possible the comparison of such observations. This analysis details and compares four automated methodologies that could be used to harmonize heterogeneous spatial agricultural datasets so that the data can be analysed and mapped conjointly. The theory and derivation of each approach, including a novel, local spatial approach is given. These methods aim to minimize the occurrence of discrepancies (discontinuities) in the data. The four approaches were evaluated and compared with a sensitivity analysis on simulated datasets with known characteristics. Results showed that none of the four methods consistently delivered a better harmonization accuracy. The accuracy and preferred choice for the harmonization procedures was shown to be influenced by (i) within-field spatial structures of the datasets, (ii) differences in acquisition conditions between the heterogeneous spatial datasets, and (iii) the spatial resolution of the simulated data. The four approaches were used to harmonize real within-field grain yield datasets and a discussion to help users select an appropriate harmonization methodology proposed. Despite significant improvements in dataset harmonization, discontinuities were not entirely removed and some uncertainty remained.

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
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Acevedo-Opazo, C., Tisseyre, B., Guillaume, S., & Ojeda, H. (2008). The potential of high spatial resolution information to define within-vineyard zones related to vine water status. Precision Agriculture, 9, 285–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartholomeus, R. P., Witte, J. P. M., van Bodegom, P. M., & Aerts, R. (2008). The need of data harmonization to derive robust empirical relationships between soil conditions and vegetation. Journal of Vegetation Science, 19, 799–808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baume, O., Skøien, J., Carré, F., Heuvelink, G., & Pebesma, E. (2009). Data harmonization of environmental variables: From simple to general solutions. In J. Hřebíček, J. Hradec, E. Pelikán, O. Mírovský, W. Pilmmann, I. Holoubek, & T. Bandholz (Eds.), European conference of the Czech presidency of the council of the European Union towards environment (pp. 162–169).

  • Baume, O., Skøien, J. O., Heuvelink, G. B. M., Pebesma, E. J., & Melles, S. J. (2010). A geostatistical approach to data harmonization—Application to radioactivity exposure data. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 13, 409–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bivand, R. S., Pebesma, E. J., & Gomez-Rubio, V. (2013). Applied spatial data analysis with R. New York, NY, USA: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brenning, A., Koszinski, S., & Sommer, M. (2008). Geostatistical homogenization of soil conductivity across field boundaries. Geoderma, 143(3), 254–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brent, R. (1973). Algorithms for minimization without derivatives, Chap. 4. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fassó, A., Cameletti, M., & Nicolis, O. (2007). Air quality monitoring using heterogeneous networks. Environmetrics, 18, 245–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Köhl, M., Traub, B., & Païvinen, R. (2000). Harmonization and standardization in multi-national environmental statistics—Mission impossible? Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 63, 361–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 600–606.

  • Leroux, C., Jones, H., Clenet, A., & Tisseyre, B. (2018). A general method to filter out defective spatial observations from yield mapping datasets. Precision Agriculture, 19, 789–808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maldaner, L. F., Molin, J. P., & Canata, T. F. (2016). Processing yield data from two or more combines. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference on precision agriculture. Retrieved March, 2019, from https://www.ispag.org/proceedings/?action=abstract&id=1965&search=years.

  • McBratney, A. B., & Pringle, M. J. (1999). Estimating average and proportional variograms of soil properties and their potential use in precision agriculture. Precision Agriculture, 1, 125–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, M. A. (2010). Geostatistical applications for precision agriculture. London, UK: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sams, B., Litchfield, C., Sanchez, L., & Dokoozlian, N. (2017). Two methods for processing yield maps from multiple sensors in large vineyards in California. 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, 530–533.

  • Skøien, J. O., Baume, O., Pebesma, E. J., & Heuvelink, G. B. M. (2010). Identifying and removing heterogeneities between monitoring networks. Environmetrics, 21, 66–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster, R., & Oliver, M. A. (1992). Sample adequately to estimate variograms of soil properties. Journal of Soil Science, 43, 177–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weller, U., Zipprich, M., Sommer, M., Castell, W. Z., & Wehrhan, M. (2007). Mapping clay content across boundaries at the landscape scale with electromagnetic induction. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 71, 1740–1747.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work, referred as ANR-16-CONV-0004, was supported by the French National Research Agency under the “Investments for the Future Program.”

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Corentin Leroux.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Leroux, C., Jones, H., Pichon, L. et al. Automatic harmonization of heterogeneous agronomic and environmental spatial data. Precision Agric 20, 1211–1230 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-019-09650-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-019-09650-0

Keywords

Navigation