HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (16) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Dobermann, A. Articles by Ferguson, R. B. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Dobermann, A. Articles by Ferguson, R. B. Agricola Articles by Dobermann, A. Articles by Ferguson, R. B. Related Collections Spatial Distribution Statistics Geostatistics Maize Management Data Management Site-Specific Analysis

PRECISION AGRICULTURE

Classification of Crop Yield Variability in Irrigated Production Fields

^a Dep. of Agron. and Hortic., Univ. of Nebraska, P.O. Box 830915, Lincoln, NE 68583-0915
^b Dep. of Biol. Syst. Eng., Univ. of Nebraska, P.O. Box 830726, Lincoln, NE 68583-0726

^* Corresponding author (adobermann2{at}unl.edu).

Received for publication January 21, 2003. Crop yield maps reflect stable yield patterns and annual random yield variation. Procedures for classifying a sequence of yield maps to delineate yield zones were evaluated in two irrigated maize (Zea mays L.) fields. Yield classes were created using empirically defined yield categories or through hierarchical or nonhierarchical cluster analysis techniques. Cluster analysis was conducted using average yield (MY), average yield and its standard deviation (MS), or all individual years (AY) as input variables. All methods were compared based on the average yield variability accounted for (RVc). Methods in which yield was empirically classified into three or four classes accounted for less than 54% of the yield variability observed and failed to delineate high-yielding areas. Six to seven yield classes established by cluster analysis of MY accounted for 60 to 66% of the yield variability. Differences among cluster analysis methods were small for MY as data source. However, fuzzy-k-means clustering had lower RVc than other methods if used with the MS or AY data. The spatial fragmentation of yield class maps increased in the order MY < MS < AY. Univariate cluster analysis of mean relative yield measured for at least 5 yr should be used for yield classification in irrigated fields where six to seven classes appear to provide sufficient resolution of the yield variability observed. More research should be conducted to develop methods that result in spatially coherent yield zones and to understand differences between rainfed and irrigated environments in the importance of mapping yield goals for crop management.

Abbreviations: AY, yields in all individual years • CV, coefficient of variation • D_v, fractal dimension • ISODATA, Iterative Self-Organizing Data Analysis • KME, k-means cluster analysis • MS, mean and standard deviation of yield • MY, mean yield • RVc, average yield variability across years accounted for by the classification • RV_j, proportion of yield variability in one year accounted for by the classification • SD, standard deviation • SSCM, site-specific crop management • WAR, hierarchical cluster analysis using Ward's method

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. L. Williams, M. Liebman, J. W. Edwards, D. E. James, J. W. Singer, R. Arritt, and D. Herzmann Patterns of Regional Yield Stability in Association with Regional Environmental Characteristics Crop Sci., July 1, 2008; 48(4): 1545 - 1559. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. L. Ping, R. B. Ferguson, and A. Dobermann Site-Specific Nitrogen and Plant Density Management in Irrigated Maize Agron. J., June 23, 2008; 100(4): 1193 - 1204. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. E. Massey, D. B. Myers, N. R. Kitchen, and K. A. Sudduth Profitability Maps as an Input for Site-Specific Management Decision Making Agron. J., January 11, 2008; 100(1): 52 - 59. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. L. Martin, P. J. Hodgen, K. W. Freeman, R. Melchiori, D. B. Arnall, R. K. Teal, R. W. Mullen, K. Desta, S. B. Phillips, J. B. Solie, et al. Plant-to-Plant Variability in Corn Production Agron. J., November 17, 2005; 97(6): 1603 - 1611. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. G. Hubbard and H. Wu Modification of a Crop-Specific Drought Index for Simulating Corn Yield in Wet Years Agron. J., October 19, 2005; 97(6): 1478 - 1484. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Roel and R. E. Plant Factors Underlying Yield Variability in Two California Rice Fields Agron. J., September 1, 2004; 96(5): 1481 - 1494. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. C. Simbahan, A. Dobermann, and J. L. Ping Screening Yield Monitor Data Improves Grain Yield Maps Agron. J., July 1, 2004; 96(4): 1091 - 1102. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]