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 (5) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Simbahan, G. C. Articles by Ping, J. L. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Simbahan, G. C. Articles by Ping, J. L. Agricola Articles by Simbahan, G. C. Articles by Ping, J. L. Related Collections Data Management Land-use Planning Site-Specific Analysis

SITE-SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT

Screening Yield Monitor Data Improves Grain Yield Maps

Dep. of Agron. and Hortic., Univ. of Nebraska, P.O. Box 830915, Lincoln, NE 68583-0915

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

Received for publication September 29, 2003. Yield monitor data contain systematic and random errors, which must be removed for creating accurate yield maps. A general procedure for assessing yield data cleaning methods was applied to a new postprocessing algorithm in which six common types of erroneous yield monitor values were removed: (1) combine header status up; (2) start-/end-pass delays; (3) grain flow, distance traveled, and grain moisture outliers; (4) values exceeding minimum and maximum biological yield limits; (5) local neighborhood outliers; and (6) short segments and co-located points. The algorithm was applied to four yield maps of maize (Zea mays L.) and soybean [Glycine max. (L.) Merr.] grown under irrigated and rainfed conditions. A total of 13 to 20% of the original yield monitor data was removed, with 72 to 85% of the removal occurring in the mandatory, primary screening process (Steps 1 and 2). Only 2.6 to 3.9% of the original yield monitor data were removed during secondary screening (Steps 3 through 6), but this additional screening lead to yield semivariograms with smaller nugget values and sills and a relative increase in map precision of 4.3 to 5.4% compared with conducting primary screening only. The local neighborhood outlier test (Step 5) removed a larger proportion of yield values in soybean (12.8 to 14.9% of all deleted values) than in maize (2.7 to 3.2%). The proposed algorithm is robust enough for implementation in commercial software but requires further testing in other crops and environments and with other brands of yield monitors.

Abbreviations: CV, coefficient of variation • GPS, global positioning system • MAE, mean absolute error • RMSE, root mean squared error • SD, standard deviation

This article has been cited by other articles:

				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]

				K. A. Sudduth and S. T. Drummond Yield Editor: Software for Removing Errors from Crop Yield Maps Agron. J., October 15, 2007; 99(6): 1471 - 1482. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Y. Miao, D. J. Mulla, P. C. Robert, and J. A. Hernandez Within-Field Variation in Corn Yield and Grain Quality Responses to Nitrogen Fertilization and Hybrid Selection Agron. J., January 5, 2006; 98(1): 129 - 140. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]