Filtering – Cleaning Yield Maps

Share this article!

In the previous post, a fairly general picture of yield sensors and associated data was drawn. Here we return to a recurring question related to yield data: How can we ensure that yield data are reliable enough to be used properly? We will therefore review the main sources of uncertainty in these data sets; and discuss some of the methods that have been proposed to address this issue. We will not go into detail on all of these methods, as that would be far too tedious, but the bibliography is still available for those interested!

Why filter yield maps ?

Yield  maps  have  been  extensively  recognized  as  a  valuable  source  of  information  for  field  decision making  (Diker et  al.  2004;  Florin  et  al.  2009;  Pringle  et  al.  2003). They  effectively  provide  a  global overview of the field spatial variability which makes it interesting to target areas or zones for variable rate management. As a combine harvester passes through a field, yield monitors acquire almost in real -time multiple yield measurements all over the field. At the same time, those data are associated with the GNSS positioning of the machinery which enables precise location of each one of these observations at the within-field level. As such, thousands of yield spatial observations are generated and are ready to be used  in  the  decision-making  process. While this  considerable  volume  of  data  is  critical  for  field management  and  decision-making,  these  datasets  must  be  used  with  great  caution.  They effectively contain lots of defective observations or technical errors that need to be removed to ensure data quality (Arslan  and  Colvin,  2002;  Blackmore  and  Moore,  1999). It is important to understand that considering these faulty observations as “errors” is actually a bit wrong. Rather, they are observations that do not correspond to the true yield observed in the fields and that could have been expected from the cropping itinerary. If we wanted to be precise, we would have to say that it is the data acquisition process (with an embedded sensor on the combine harvester) that leads to the generation of data that are sometimes not consistent with reality. It is not the sensor itself that makes a mistake (although this can happen) but the fact of having an on-board system that conditions the way the data is acquired. In the rest of this post, I’ll talk about “yield errors” because it’s simpler but you’ll have understood (I hope) that it’s a simplification of reality.

As  a  consequence,  yield  datasets  are  often severely fil tered to make sure further analyses are not flawed (Robinson and Metternicht, 2005; Sudduth and Dummond, 2007; Sun et al. 2013). Several authors have described to what extent a yield map could evolve after removing abnormal values (Simbahan et al. 2004; Su dduth and Dummond, 2007). Griffin et al. (2008) have even shown that these latter observations were able to influence field management decisions. However, be careful because the article by Griffin et al. (2008) remains quite qualitative. There aren’t really any studies that have really looked very thoroughly at the impact that faulty observations can have on yield mapping. If it were up to me, I would tend to say that it all depends on what you want to do with the yield data. If you want to have average yield information at the plot level, or if you want to have large yield trends in the plots, a fairly simple filtering method should be sufficient and give fairly conclusive results. However, if you want to go into more detail, for example, to validate experimental results or to modulate inputs precisely, you should work better with slightly more advanced and robust methods. On the other hand, one should never assume that data cleaning will be perfect! The expertise of the field, be it that of the farmer, his advisor or an experimentation leader, who knows the plot, is essential.

Typology of yield errors

These technical errors or defective observations have been largely documented in the literature. Lyle et al. (2013) have  proposed  a categorization of those latter errors into four major groups: (i) harvesting dynamics of the combine harvester, (ii) continuous measurements of yield and moisture, (iii) accuracy of  the  positioning  system  and,  (iv)  harvester  operator .  These  technical  errors  are  briefly  described hereafter,  in  the  previously  defined  order,  along  with  methodologies  that  have  been  proposed  by  the scientific community to identify these defective observations.

  • The harvesting dynamics of the machine includ e three different offsets, referred to as the lag time,  filling time  and emptying time  (Blackmore  and Moore,  1999). The lag time  induces an offset between the actual and the true location in space of a yield observation because the yield is not measured si multaneously with the cutting of the crop. Some attempts have been made to determine  this  offset  through  (i)  geostatistical  methods  (Chung  et  al.,  2002),  (ii)  image processing techniques (Lee et al. 2012) and (iii) signal deconvolution (Arslan, 2008; Reink e et al. 2011). The filling time at the start of a harvest pass leads to an under-estimation of the yield because  the  grain  flow  is  increasing  and  still  has  not  reached  a  plateau,  i.e.  the  permanent regime. Therefore, yield measurements do not match the ex pected true yield values. At the end of a harvest pass, some grain might still continue to flow after the last crop was harvested and the lag time has been reached. As a consequence, the latest observations of a harvest pass are generally under-estimated. The methods that have been proposed so far are exclusively visual, i.e.  the  grain  flow  is  plotted  against  the  travel  time  or  distance  of  the  machine  and  the  data located before or after the plateau are removed (Lyle et al. 2013; Simbahan et al. 2004).
  • Continuous  measurements  relate  to  yield  and  moisture  observations.  So  far,  studies  have focused on thresholds, mostly determined empirically, to identify measurement errors (Sudduth and  Drummond,  2007;  Taylor  et  al.  2007).  Arslan  and  Colvin  (2002)  have  repor ted  sensor accuracies varying between 1 and  4% while  other authors  have  found differences up to 10% depending  on  environmental  conditions  during  data  acquisition,  e.g.  steep  slopes  (Reitz  and Kutzback, 1996). To overcome that issue, a couple of studies hav e focused on the impact of the combine harvester vibrations on the yield measurement accuracy (Hu et al. 2012; Jingtao and Shuhui, 2010).
  • The accuracy of the positioning systems can lead to (i) observations outside field boundaries, (ii) measurements at the same spatial location, i.e. co-located points, or (iii) deviations in space according to a  predefined harvest pass (Blackmore  and  Moore,  1999). The two first types of errors are easily handled by removing the points outside the boundaries of the field or points with  similar  co-ordinates  (Robinson  and  Metternicht,  2005;  Simbahan  et  al.  2004).  Some algorithms have been implemented to reconstruct precisely the harvest passes by studying the angles formed by consecutive points (Lyle et al., 2013). Suspicious points – those the combine harvester is not likely to have gone through – are removed from the dataset.
  • Last type of errors has to do with the harvester operator. First, large variations in speed are likely to  have  a  major  impact  on  the  yield  dataset  qu ality  (Arslan  and  Colvin,  2002;  Sudduth  and Drumond, 2007). Speed issues are generally processed the same way as yield and moisture, i.e. by setting thresholds to the whole dataset or only to neighbouring data (Lyle et al. 2013). The harvester operator is also likely to overlap consecutive or adjacent harvest passes which may result in yield measurement errors. Some authors have focused on this ‘not fully used cutting bar’ effect and have come up with vector-based  pre-processing  methods  to take into account  these overlaps, mainly by reconstructing harvesting polygons (Drummond et al., 1999). These vector-based methods are heavily dependent on the positioning accuracy of the GNSS device and  require  a  large  processing  time.  Other  authors  have  proposed  specific on-board  systems, such as those based on ultrasonic sensors (Zhao et al. 2010). Finally, harvest turns and headlands are also responsible for bad yield estimates (Lyle et al. 2013). Studies dedicated to these last sources of errors – though limited in the literature – have focused on finding the points inside harvest  turns  or  headlands  by  using  distance  or  angle  measures  between  consecutive  points. Suspicious points are removed.  On-board  sensors  such  as  yield  monitors  generate  an  extremely  large  amount  of observations.

You will find some of the typologies of yield errors on the following figures:

Figure 1. Yield Map

Figure 2. Yield map with errors annotated.

This considerable volume of observations requires the filtering approaches to be at the same time automated, very general and non-parametric (Simbahan et al. 2004; Spekken et al. 2013). The automation condition is fundamental with regard to the increasing size and number of yield datasets to process. For instance, it would not be conceivable for an operator or advisor to spend time on the correction of hundreds of possible within-field yield maps. General and non-parametric detection methods a re also to be preferred because of the diversity of datasets that have to be processed. These datasets are effectively acquired through a variety of acquisition systems – machines, sensors – and on multiple crops, with different operators and under  varying conditions of acquisition,  e.g.  topography or  climate. It is therefore important to make sure that the approaches are able to deliver conclusive results whatever the dataset to be  analysed.  Even though new operating systems exist to improve the quality  of yield  datasets,  e.g. ultrasonic sensors (Zhao et al. 2010), it can be argued that all the actual combine harvesters are far from being equipped with it.  General methods are  therefore  also  required  to  process  datasets  arising  from multiple types of machines, whatever the level of additional equipment installed. It must be kept in mind that  agronomic  datasets  are  often  included  in  complex  processes  of  field  management  and  decision -making, and are sometimes used as inputs in agronomic models. Data filtering methods have therefore to be robust enough so that the decision-making process is accurate and not flawed. A limitation of the actual literature is that most of the existing approaches are semi-automatic and rely on expert thresholds and filters. These last aspects might be problematical for the processing of yield maps at a larger scale as filtering settings can be influenced by each map producer and as skilled operators might be required for a considerable amount of time (Spekken et al. 2013). Once again, the end user will have control over the processing resulting from an automated method, and will be able to consider whether or not the processing appears relevant to him or her. For interested readers, a filtering method attempting to meet these constraints as much as possible has been proposed in the framework of my thesis (Leroux et al., 2018).

Some additional elements

So far, we have focused on various yield errors, but with the assumption that the yield information collected is still mostly of good quality (otherwise, if everything was bad, how could we consider some data to be removed and others to be kept). That is, we assumed that the yield monitor was initially well calibrated…. The calibration of the yield (and humidity…) sensor is very important to be sure that the yield values obtained can be used as they are, i.e. in absolute values. If the sensor is badly calibrated, nothing tells us that the values are those expected; on the other hand one can still make the assumption that the sensor will not reverse the observed yield trends (in other words that it will not consider a low yield as strong and vice versa). All this to say that even badly calibrated, a yield sensor should still be able to reproduce fairly faithfully the main yield trends in the plot, even if these values may be false in absolute terms. Optimally, it should be possible to calibrate the sensor every day (in view of changing acquisition conditions, such as humidity for example) and when the type of plants harvested changes. This is unfortunately difficult to do from an operational point of view; but calibration of the yield sensor should be done correctly at least once at the beginning of the harvesting season. One could also imagine correcting the yield map in absolute terms from a reference yield value at the plot level, for example the one obtained at the exit weighing of the plot (if the weighing is done for each plot). This could be a way to compare the average “true” yield at the plot level and the average yield obtained with the yield data. Be aware, however, that the calibration error may not be linear over the entire range of yield values (i.e., the yield error may be greater for high yield values than for low yield values). Also be aware that correcting with a mean value does not take into account the variance of the yield that could be expected in the plot.

The majority of the yield maps are presented in the form of point data. However, keep in mind that yield information is really an area, the area given by the speed of the harvester and its cutting bar. Add to this, if we want to be fussy, that when the plants are cut, it is the plants in front of the centre of the cutting bar that are brought into the harvester first, relative to the plants at the tails of the cutting bar. All of this can affect the actual weight to be given to yield observations. Getting into these considerations becomes extremely complex and one could question the relevance of going into so much detail. However, some research has gone as far as modeling the functioning of a combine harvester to take these aspects into account (Reinke et al., 2011). Since all combines are different, this approach unfortunately seems a bit too complex to be applied in the field. Finally, in relation to the modelling of combine harvester operation, I would like to come back to a point that we have left a little aside so far, the rethreshing of tailings (presented in the figure of the combine harvester in the previous post). To understand this phenomenon, we can imagine that at time ‘t’, a stock of grain enters the combine. In a perfect system, all the grain stock entering the combine at the same time would arrive in the grain tank at the same time. Unfortunately, some of this grain (not necessarily well threshed or sieved) remains in the harvester and is mixed with the grain stock(s) that continues to arrive at time ‘t+1’ for example. This phenomenon therefore raises questions about the yield weighting on each of the measuring points carried out since, in reality, the yield measured corresponds only to a portion of the grain actually harvested at a specific point in space. Can we make the hypothesis that this rethreshing of tailings remains more or less stable throughout the harvest and therefore that all observations would be affected in the same way? It could be worth checking… That’s the hypothesis we’re making, anyway.

You’ll excuse me for the bibliographical references that I didn’t reclassify specifically for this post… but you should be able to find them without any problem =)

  1. 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.
  2. Adams, R., & Bischof, L.  (1994).  Seeded  Region  Growing. IEEE  Transactions  on  Pattern  Analysis  and Machine Intelligence, 16, 641-647
  3. Akdemir, B. (2016).  Evalution  of  precision  farming  research  and  applications  in  Turkey. VII  International Scientific  Agriculture  Symposium  “Agrosym  2016”.  6-9  October  2016,  Jahorina,  Bosnia and  Herzegovina. Proceedings Book. pp.1498-1504.
  4. Angiulli, F., Fassetti, F., & Palopoli,  L. (2009). Detecting  outlying properties of exceptional objects. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 34, 1, 1-7.
  5. Angiulli, F., Fassetti, F., & Palopoli, L. (2012). Discoverying characterizations of the behavior of outlier sub -populations. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 25, 1280-1292
  6. Arslan, S., &  Colvin,  T.  (2002 ).  Grain  yield  mapping :  yield  sensing,  yield  reconstruction,  and  errors. Precision Agriculture, 3, 135-154
  7. Arslan, S. (2008). A Grain Flow Model to Simulate Grain Yield Sensor Response. Sensors, 8, 952–962.
  8. Arun, P.V. (2013). A comparative analysis of different DEM interpolation methods. The Egyptian Journal of Remote Sensing and Space Science, 16, 2, 133-139.
  9. Baluja, J., Diago, M.,  Goovaerts,  P.,  &  Tardaguila,  J.  (2012 ).  Assessment  of  the  spatial  variability  of anthocyanins  in  grapes  using  a  fluorescence  sensor:  relationships  with  vine  vigour  and  yield. Precision Agriculture, 13, 457–472.
  10. Bakhsh, A., Jaynes, D.B., Colvin, T.S., & Kanxar, R.S. (2000). Spatio-temporal analysis of yield variability for a corn-soybean field in Iowa. Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, 43, 31-38.
  11. Barnaghi, P., Sheth, A., & Henson C. (2013 ) “From data to actionable knowledge: Big data challenges in the web of things,” Intelligent Systems, IEEE, 28, 6–11, 2013.
  12. Basso, B., Bertocco, M., Sartori, L., & Martin, E.C. (2007 ). Analyzing the effects of climate variability on spatial pattern of yield in a maize–wheat–soybean rotation. European Journal of Agronomy, 26, 82–91.
  13. Basso, B., Fiorentino,  C.,  Cammarano,  D.,  Cafiero,  G.,  &  Dardanelli,  J.  (2012 ).  Analysis  of  rainfall distribution on spatial and temporal patterns of wheat yield in Mediterranean environment. European Journal of Agronomy, 41, 52-65.
  14. Basso, B., B. Dumont, D. Cammarano, A. Pezzuolo, F. Marinello, & L. Sartori. (2016 ). Environmental and economic benefits of variable  rate  nitrogen  fertilization  in  a  nitrate  vulnerable  zone .  Science  of  the  Total Environment. 545–546, 227–235
  15. Bellehumeur, C., Legendre, P., & Marcotte, D. (1997). Variance and spatial scales in a tropical rain forest: changing the size of sampling units. Plant Ecology, 130, 89-98.
  16. Ben-Gal, I. (2005 ). Outlier Detection. The Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery Handbook: A Complete Guide for Practitioners and Researchers. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  17. Berducat, M., Boffety, D. (2000). Gestion de l’information parcellaire – cartographie du rendement à la récolte. Ingénieries – E A T, IRSTEA édition 2000, p. 53 – p. 62
  18. Beyer, K., Goldstein,  J.,  Ramakrishnan,  R.,  &  Shaft,  U.  (1999).  When  is  nearest  neighbor  meaningful ?  In Proceedings of the 7 th ICDT, Jerusalem, Israel.
  19. Bivand R.S., Pebesma, E.J., & Gomez-Rubio, V. (2008). Applied Spatial Data Analysis with R. New York, NY: Springer
  20. Blackmore, B. S., & Moore, M. (1999). Remedial correction of yield map data. Precision Agriculture, 1, 53 – 66.
  21. Blackmore, S., Godwin, R.J., & Fountas, S. (2003 ). The analysis of spatial and temporal trends in yield map data over six years. Biosystems Engineering. 84, 455-466.
  22. Bongiovanni, B. and  Lowenberg-Deboer,  J.  (2004).  Precision  agriculture  and  sustainability. Precision Agriculture, 5, 359_387.
  23. Bongiovanni, R.G., Robledo,   C.W.,   &   Lambert,   D.M.   (2007).   Economics   of   site-specific   nitrogen management for protein content in wheat. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 58, 13–24.
  24. Bramley, R.G.V., & Hamilton,  R.P.  (2004).  Understanding  variability  in  winegrape  production  systems. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 10, 32–45
  25. Bramley, R.G., Hill, P.A., Thorburn, P.J., Kroon, F.J., & Panten, K (2008 ). Precision agriculture for improved environmental outcomes: some Australian perspectives. Agriculture Forest Research, 3, 161–178.
  26. Breunig, M.M., Kriegel, H.P., Ng, R.T., & Sander, J. (2000). Lof: identifying density-based local outliers. In Proceedings of 2000 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data. ACM Press, pp. 93 – 104
  27. 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.
  28. Cambardella, C. A.,  &  Karlen,  D.  L.  (1999). Spatial  analysis  of  soil  fertility  parameters. Precision Agriculture, 1, 5-14.
  29. Cao, Q., Cui,  Z.,  Chen,  X.,  Khosla,  R.,  Dao,  T.H.,  &  Miao,  Y.  (2012 ).  Quantifying  spatial  variability  of indigenous nitrogen management in small scale farming. Precision Agriculture, 13, 45–61.
  30. Cassman, K. G. (1999 ). Ecological intensification of cereal production systems: yield potential, soil quality, and precision agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America , 96, 5952–5959
  31. Cerovic, Z.G., Goutouly,  J.P.,  Hilbert,  G.,  Destrac-Irvine,  A.,  Martinon,  V.,  &  Moise,  N.  (2009 )  Mapping winegrape quality attributes using portable fluorescence-based sensors. In: Best S (ed) Progap INIA, FRUTIC 09, Conception, Chile, pp 301–310
  32. Chen, D., Lu, C-T., Kou, Y. & Chen, F. (2008). On Detecting Spatial Outliers. Geoinformatica, 12, 455-475
  33. Chung, S. O., Sudduth, K. A., & Drummond, S. T. (2002 ). Determining Yield Monitoring System Delay Time With Geostatistical and Data Segmentation Approaches. Transactions of the ASAE, 45, 915-926.
  34. Chung, S.O., Choi,  M.C.,  Lee,  K.H,  Kim,  Y.J,  Hong,  S.J.,  Li,  M.  (2016 ).  Sensing  Technologies  for  Grain Crop Yield Monitoring Systems: A Review. Journal of Biosystems Engineering, 41, 408-417.
  35. Cid-Garcia, N.M., Albornoz, V., Rios-Solis, Y.A., & Ortega, R. (2013 ). Rectangular shape management zone delineation using integer linear programming. Computer and Electronics in Agriculture, 93, 1–9.
  36. Clifford, P., Richardson,  S.,  &  Hemon,  D.  (1989 ).  Testing  the  association  between  two  spatial  processes. Biometrics, 45, 123–134.
  37. Collins, E.D., & Chandrasekaran, K. (2012 ). A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing? An Analysis of the ‘Sustainable Intensification’ of Agriculture (Friends of the Earth International, Amsterdam, 2012)
  38. Colvin, T.S., Jaynes, D.B., Karlen, D.L., Laird, D.A., & Ambuel, J.R. (1997 ). Yield variability within a central Iowa field. Transactions of the ASAE, 40, 883–889.
  39. Comifer (2007 ). Teneur en P, K et Mg des organes végétaux récoltés pour les cultures de plein champ et les principaux fourrages, Comifer, Paris, 6 pages.
  40. Cox, S. (2002). Information technology : the global key to precision agriculture and sustainability. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 36, 93-111.
  41. Cressie, N. A., (1991). Statistics for Spatial Data. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
  42. Cressie, N. (1996). Change of support and the modifiable areal unit proble. Geographical Systems, 3, 159 – 180
  43. Dale, M.R.T, & Fortin, M.J. (2002). Spatial autocorrelation and statistical tests in ecology. Eco Science , 9, 162-167
  44. Davatgar, N., Neishabouri, M.R., & Sepaskhah, A.R. (2012 ). Delineation of site specific nutrient management zones for a paddy cultivated area based on soil fertility using fuzzy clustering. Geoderma, 173–174, 111–118.
  45. Debuisson, S., Germain,  C.,  Garcia,  O.,  Panigai,  L.,  Moncomble,  D.,  Le  Moigne,  et  al. (2010 ).  Using Multiplex® and Greenseeker™ to manage spatial variation of vine vigor in Champagne. 10th International Conference on Precision Agriculture.
  46. de Oliveira, R. P., Whelan, B. M., McBratney, A. B., & Taylor, J. A. (2007 ). Yield variability as an index supporting  management  decisions:  YIELDex. Proceedings  of  the  6th  European  Conference  on  Precision Agriculture, 281–288.
  47. DEFRA (2013). Farm  Practices  Survey  Autumn  2012 – England. Department  for  Environment,  Food  and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). 41pp.
  48. Di Virgilio, N.,  Monti,  A.,  &  Venturi,  G.  (2007). Spatial  variability  of  switchgrass  (Panicum  virgatum  L.) yield as related to soil parameters in a small field. Field Crops Research, 101, 232-239.
  49. Diker, K., D.F. Heerman, & M.K. Brodahl. (2004 ). Frequency analysis of yield for delineating yield response zones. Precision Agriculture, 5, 435–444.
  50. Drummond, S. T., Fraisse, C. W., & Sudduth, K. A. (1999 ). Combine Harvest Area Determination by Vector Processing of GPS Position Data. Transactions of the ASAE, 42, 1221–1227.
  51. Duan, L., Xu, L., Guo, F., Lee, J., & Yan, B. (2007). A local-density based spatial clustering algorithm with noise. Information Systems, 32, 978–986
  52. Duan L., Tang, G., Pei, J., Bailey, J., Campbell, A., & Tang, C. (2015 ). Mining outlying aspects on numeric data. Data Mining Knowledge Discovery, 29, 1116–1151
  53. Dutilleul, P. (1993).  Modifying  the  t-test  for  assessing  the  correlation  between  two  spatial  processes. Biometrics, 49, 305–314.
  54. Eghball, B., Power,  J.F.  (1995). Fractal  description  of  temporal  yield  variability  of  10  crops  in  the  United States. Agronomy Journal, 87, 152-156.
  55. Ertoz, L., Eilertson, E., Lazarevic, A., Tan, P., Srivastava, J., Kumar, V., & Dokas, P. (2004). The MINDS – Minnesota Intrusion Detection System, in Data Mining, A. Joshi H. Kargupta, K. Sivakumar, and Y. Yesha (Eds.) Next Generation Challenges and Future Directions.
  56. Ester, M., Kriegel, H.-P., Sander, J., & Xu, X. (1996). A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases  with  noise.  In  E.  Simoudis,  J.  Han,  and  U.  Fayyad  (Eds.), Proceedings  of  Second International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , Palo Alto, CA, USA: AAAI Press, pp 226–231.
  57. European Parliamentary Research Service (2016 ). Precision Agriculture and the Future of Farming in Europe, STOA, Brussels, European Union.
  58. EU SCAR. (2012). Agricultural knowledge and innovation systems in transition. Brussels: EU.
  59. Fairfield Smith, H. (1938). An empirical law describing heterogeneity in the yield of agricultural crops. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 28, 1–23.
  60. FAO (2017). The future of food and agriculture. (accessed 05/06/2018)
  61. Fauvel, M., Chanussot, J.,  &  Benediktsson,  J.A.  (2011).  A  spatial–spectral  kernel-based  approach  for  the classification of remote-sensing images. Pattern Recognition, 45, 381-392.
  62. Fauvel, M., Tarabalka, Y., Benediktsson, J.A., Chanussot, J., & Tilton, J. (2012). Advances in Spectral-Spatial Classication of Hyperspectral  Images. Proceedings  of  the  IEEE,  Institute  of  Electrical  and  Electronics Engineers, 101, 652-675.
  63. Filzmoser, P., Ruiz-Gazen,   A.,   &   Thomas-Agnan,   C.   (2014). Identification   of   local   multivariate outliers. Statistical Papers, 55, 29-47.
  64. Florin, M.J., McBratney,  A.B.,  &  Whelan,  B.M.  (2009 ).  Quantification  and  comparison  of  wheat  yield variation across space and time. European Journal of Agronomy, 30, 212-219.
  65. Fountas, S., Pedersen, S.M., & Blackmore, S. (2005). ICT in Precision Agriculture – diffusion of technology. In “ICT in Agriculture: Perspectives of Technological Innovation” edited by E. Gelb, A. Offer. 15pp.
  66. Fraisse, C.W., Sudduth,  K.A.,  Kitchen,  N.R.  (2001).  Delineation  of  site-specific  management zones  by unsupervised  classification  of  topographic  attributes  and  soil  electrical  conductivity. Transactions  of  the ASAE, 44, 155-166.
  67. Fulton, J.P., Shearer,  S.A., Chabra,  G.,  &  Higgins,  S.F.  (2001 ).  Performance  assessment  and  model development of a variable-rate, spinner-disc fertilizer applicator. Transactions of the ASAE, 44, 1071-1081.
  68. Fulton, J. P., Shearer, S.A., Higgins, S.F., Darr, M.J., & Stombaugh, T.S. (2005 ). Rate response assessment from various granular VRT applicators. Transactions of the ASAE, 48, 2095‐2103.
  69. Garnett, T., Appleby,  M.  C.,  Balmford,  A.,  Bateman,  I.  J.,  Benton,  T.  G.,  Bloomer,  P.,  et  al.  (2013 ). Sustainable intensification in agriculture: Premises and policies. Science, 341, 33–34.
  70. Gogoi, P, Bhattacharyya D, Borah B, & Kalita JK (2011 ). A survey of outlier detection methods in network anomaly identification. Computer Journal, 54, 570–88.
  71. Goldman Sachs (2016). Precision Farming. Cheating Malthus with Digital Agriculture. Profiles in Innovation.
  72. Goovaerts P. (1997). Geostatistics for Natural Ressources Evaluation, Applied Geostatistics Series, Oxford University Press, New York.
  73. Grassini, P., van Bussel, L.G.J., van Wart,  J., Wolf, J., Claessens,  L., Yang, H. et al. (2015 ). How  good is good  enough?  Data  requirements  for  reliable  crop  yield  simulations  and  yield-gap  analysis. Field  Crops Research, 177, 49-63.
  74. Griepentrog, H.W., Thiessen, E., Kristensen, H. & Knudsen, L. (2007). A patch-size index to assess machinery to match soil and crop spatial variability. In Proceedings: 6th European Conference on Precision Agriculture.
  75. Griffin, T.W., Lowenberg-Deboer,  J.,  Lambert,  D.M.,  Peone,  J.,  Payne,  T.,  &  Daberkow,  S.G.  (2004 ). Adoption, profitability, and making better use of precision farming data. Staff Paper #04-06. Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University.
  76. Griffin, T., Dobbins,  C.,  Vyn,  T.,  Florax,  R.,  &  Lowenberg-DeBoer,  J.  (2008 ).  Spatial  analysis  of  yield monitor data: case studies of on-farm trials and farm management decision making. Precision Agriculture , 9, 269–283
  77. Griffin, T. & Erickson, B. (2009 ). Adoption and Use of Yield Monitor Technology for U.S. Crop Production. Site Specific Management Center Newsletter, Purdue University, 9pp.
  78. Grisso, R., Alley, M. & Groover, G. (2009). Precision Farming Tools: GPS Navigation. Virginia Cooperative Extension. Publication No 442-501. 7pp.
  79. Han, S., J.W.  Hummel,  C.E.  Goering,  &  M.D.  Cahn.  (1994).  Cell  size  selection  for  site-specific  crop management. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, 37, 19–26.
  80. Haralick, R.M., Shanmugam,  K.,  &  Dinstein,  I.  (1973).  Texture  features  for  image  classification, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 3, 610-621.
  81. Harris, P., Brunsdon, C., Charlton, M., Juggins, S., & Clarke, A. (2014 ). Multivariate Spatial Outlier Detection Using Robust Geographically Weighted Methods. Math Geosciences, 1–31.
  82. Hawkins, D. (1980). Identification of Outliers, London, UK: Chapman & Hall
  83. Hu, J., Gong C., & Zhang Z. (2012) Dynamic Compensation for Impact-Based Grain Flow Sensor. In: Li D., Chen Y. (eds)  Computer  and  Computing  Technologies  in  Agriculture  V.  CCTA  2011.  IFIP  Advances  in Information and Communication Technology, vol 370, 210-216, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany: Springer
  84. Hubert, M., & Van der Veeken, S. (2008). Outlier detection for skewed data. Journal of Chemometrics , 22, 235–246
  85. Iqbal, J., Thomasson, J.A., Jenkins, J.N., Owens, P.R & Whisler, F.D. (2005 ). Spatial Variability Analysis of Soil Physical Properties of Alluvial Soils. Soil Science Society of America, 69, 1-14.
  86. Jingtao, Q., &  Shuhui,  Z.  (2010).  Experiment  research  of  impact-based  sensor  to  monitor  corn  ear  yield. International Conference on Computer Application and System Modeling, IEEE, 101, 187–192.
  87. Jones, H., Guillaume,  S.,  Loisel,  P.,  Charnomordic,  B.,  &  Tisseyre,  B.  (2016). Generation  of  Plateau -Approximated Fuzzy Zones. In Proceedings of the Conference on Spatial Accuracy, Montpellier, France.
  88. Journel, A. G., & Huijbregts, C. J. (1978). Mining geostatistics. Academic Press, London, England.
  89. Junior, V.V., Carvalh, M.P., Dafonte, J., Freddi, O.S., Vidal Vazquez, E., & Ingaramo, O.E. (2006 ). Spatial variability of soil water content and mechanical resistance of Brazilian ferralsol. Soil and Tillage Research , 85, 166–177.
  90. Keskin, M., & Sekerli, Y.E. (2016 ). Awareness and adoption of precision agriculture in the Cukurova region of Turkey. Agronomy Research, 14, 1307–1320.
  91. Kitchen, N.R., Sudduth, K.A., Myers, D.B., Drummond, S.T., & Hong, S.Y. (2005). Delineating productivity zones on claypan  soil  fields  using  apparent  soil  electrical  conductivity. Computers  and  Electronics  in Agriculture, 46, 285-308
  92. Knorr E. M., & Ng R. T. (1999). Finding Intensional Knowledge of Distance-based Outliers. In Proceeding s of the 25th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, Edinburgh, Scotland, pp. 211-222
  93. Koch, B., Khosla, R., Frasier, W.M., Westfall, D.G., & Inman, D. (2004). Economic feasibility of variable -rate nitrogen application utilizing site-specific management zones. Agronomy Journal, 96, 1572–1580
  94. Kormann, G., Demmel,  M.,  &  Auernhammer,  H.  (1998). Testing  stand  for  yield  measurement  systems  in combine harvesters. ASAE;St. Joseph, MI: 1998. ASAE Paper No. 983102.
  95. Kravchenko, A.N., Robertson, G.P., Thelen, K.D., & Harwood, R.R. (2005). Management, topographical, and weather eff ects on spatial variability of crop grain yields. Agronomy Journal, 97, 514–523.
  96. Lachia, N. (2017 ). Usages  de  la  télédétection  en  agriculture.  Observatoire  des  usages  de  l’agriculture numérique.
  97. Lamb, J.A., Dowdy, R.H., Anderson, J.L., & Rehm, G.W. (1997). Spatial and temporal stability of corn grain yields. Journal of Production Agriculture, 10, 410-414.
  98. Larson, J.A., M.M.  Velandia,  M.J.  Buschermohle,  &  S.M.  Westland  (2016 ).  Effect  of  field  geometry  on profitability of automatic section control for chemical application equipment. Precision Agriculture, 17, 18 – 35.
  99. Lauzon, J.D., Fallow, D.J., O’Halloran, I.P., Gregory, S.D.L., & von Bertoldi, A.P. (2005 ). Assessing the temporal stability of spatial patterns in crop yields using combine  yield monitor data. Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 439-451.
  100. Lee, D. H., Sudduth, K. A., Drummond, S. T., Chung, S. O., & Myers, D. B. (2012 ). Automated yield map delay identification using phase correlation methodology. Transactions of the ASABE, 55, 743–752.
  101. Legendre, P. & L. Legendre (1998). Numerical Ecology, 2nd English edition. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
  102. Leroux, C., Jones,  H.,  Clenet,  A.,  &  Tisseyre,  B.  (2017a). A  new  approach  for  zoning  irregularly-spaced, within-field data. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 141, 196-206.
  103. Leroux, C., Jones, H., Clenet, A., Dreux, B., Becu, M., & Tisseyre, B. (2017b). Simulating yield datasets: an opportunity to improve da ta filtering algorithms. In J A Taylor, D Cammarano, A Preashar, A Hamilton (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Precision Agriculture, Precision Agriculture ’17 (Advances in Animal Biosciences, 8, 600-605.
  104. Leroux, C., Jones,  H.,  Clenet, A.,  &Tisseyre,  B.  (2018a). A  general  method  to  filter  out  defective  spatial observations from yield mapping datasets. Precision Agriculture.
  105. Leroux, C., Jones, H., Taylor, J, Clenet, A., & Tisseyre, B. (2018b). A zone-based approach for processing and interpreting variability in multitemporal yield data sets. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 148, 299-308.
  106. Li, Y., Shi, Z., Li, F., & Li, H.Y. (2007). Delineation of site-specific management zones using fuzzy clustering analysis in a coastal saline land. Computer and Electronics in Agriculture, 56, 174–186
  107. Lindblom, J., Lundström,  C.,  Ljung,  M.,  &  Jonsson,  A.  (2016 ).  Promoting  sustainable  intensifcation  in precision agriculture: Review of decision support systems development and strategies. Precision Agriculture , 18, 309–331.
  108. Loisel, P., Jones, H., Charnomordic, B., & Tisseyre, B. (2018). An optimisation-based approach to generate intepretable within-field zones. Precision Agriculture,
  109. López-Granados, F., Jurado-Expósito,  M.,  Atenciano,  S., García-Ferrer,  A.,  Sánchez  de  la  Orden,  M.,  & García-Torres,  L.  (2002). Spatial  variability  of  agricultural  soil  parameters  in  southern  Spain. Plant  and Soil, 246, 97-105.
  110. López-Granados, F., Jurado-Expósito,  M.,  Alamo,  S.,  &  Garcıa-Torres,  L.  (2004).  Leaf nutrient  spatial variability and site-specific fertilization maps within olive (Olea europaea L.) orchards. European Journal of Agronomy, 21, 209-222.
  111. Lu, C.-T., Chen, D., & Kou, Y. (2003). Algorithms for spatial outlier detection . In X.Wu, A. Tuzhilin, and J. Shavlik (Eds.) Proceedings of the Third IEEE International Conference on Data Mining , Los Alamitos, CA, USA: IEEE Press, pp 597-600.
  112. Lyle, G., Bryan,  B.,  &  Ostendorf,  B.  (2013).  Post-processing  methods  to  eliminate  erroneous grain  yield measurements: review and directions for future development. Precision Agriculture, 15, 377-402.
  113. Maine, N., Nell,  W.T.,  Lowenberg-DeBoer,  J.,  &  Alemu,  Z.G. (2010) Economic  Analysis  of  Phosphorus Applications under Variable and Single-Rate Applications in the Bothaville District, Agrekon, 46, 532-547
  114. Maini, R., &  Aggarwal,  H.  (2009 ).  Study  and  Comparison  of  Various  Image  Edge  Detection  Techniques. International Journal of Image Processing, 3, 1-11.
  115. Marques, H.O., Campello,  R.J.,  Zimek,  A.,  Sander,  J.  (2015 ).    On  the  internal  evaluation  of  unsupervised outlier detection. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Scientific and Statistical Database Management (SSDBM ’15), Amarnath Gupta and Susan Rathbun (Eds.), ACM, New York, NY, USA, 12 pp
  116. Marques da Silva,  J.R.  (2006). Analysis  of  the  Spatial  and  Temporal  Variability  of  Irrigated  Maize  Yield. Biosystems Engineering, 94, 337–349
  117. Massey, R.E., Myers, D.B., Kitchen, N.R., & Sudduth, K.A. (2008). Profitability maps as an input for site -specific management decision making. Agronomy Journal, 100, 52-59.
  118. Matheron, G. (1963). Principles of geostatistics. Economic Geology, 58, 1246–1266
  119. McCallum, M., & Sargent, M. (2008). The Economics of adopting PA technologies on Australian farms. 12th Annual Symposium on  Precision  Agriculture  Research  &  Application  in  Australasia. The  Australian Technology Park, Eveleigh, Sydney. 19 September 2008. p.44-47.
  120. McBratney, A. & Taylor, J. (2000 ). PV or not PV? In Proceedings of the  5th International Symposium on Cool Climate Viticulture and Oenology, Melbourne, Australia.
  121. McBratney, A., Whelan,  B.,  Ancev,  T.,  & Bouma,  J.  (2005).  Future  directions  of  precisi on  agriculture. Precision Agriculture, 6, 7-23.
  122. Mehnert, A., & Jackway, V. (1997). Improved seeded region growing algorithm. Pattern Recognition , Letters 18, 1065–1071.
  123. Mercer, W. B., & Hall, A. D. (1911). The experimental error of field trials. Journal of Agricultural Science, 4, 107–132.
  124. Molin, J.P. (2002 ).  Methodology  for  identification,  characterization  and  removal  of  errors  on  yield  maps. ASAE Annual International Meeting, Chicago, Proceedings, Illinois.
  125. Molin, J.P., & Faulin, G.D.C. (2002). Spatial an d temporal variability of soil electrical conductivity related to soil moisture. Scientia Agricola, 70, 1-5.
  126. Molin, J. P., Menegatti, L.A.A, Pereira, L.L., Cremonini, L.C., & Evangelista, M. (2002 ). Testing a fertilizer spreader with VRT. In  Proceedings  of the  World  Congress  of  Computers  in  Agriculture  and  Natural Resources, 232-237
  127. Mondal, P., &  Basu,  M.  (2009 ).  Adoption  of  precision  agriculture  technologies  in  India  and  in  some developing countries: Scope, present status and strategies. Progress in Natural Science, 19, 659–666
  128. Monsó, A., Arnó, J., & Martínez-Casasnovas, J.A. (2013). A simplified index to assess the opportunity for selective wine grape harvesting from vigour maps. Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Precision Agriculture, 625-32
  129. Moral F.J., Terron  J.M.,  Marques  da  Silva,  J.R.  (2010). Delineation  of  management  zones  using  mobile measurements  of  soil  electrical  conductivity  and  multivariate  geostatistical  techniques. Soil  &  Tillage Research, 106, 335–343
  130. Norwood, S. & Fulton, J. (2009). GPS/GIS Applications for Farming Systems. Alabama Farmers Federation Commodity Organizational Meeting, USA.
  131. Noyel, G., Angulo, J., Jeulin, D. (2007). Morphological segmentation of hyperspectral images. Image Analysis and Stereology, 26, 101-109.
  132. Oliver, M.A., Webster, M. (1989 ). A geostatistical basis for spatial weighing in  multivariate  classification, Mathematical Geology, 21, 15-35.
  133. Oliver, M. A. (2010). Geostatistical Applications for Precision Agriculture, Springer, London, UK, 295 pp.
  134. Oliver, Y.M., & Robertson, M.J. (2013 ). Quantifying the spatial pattern of the yield gap within a farm in a low rainfall Mediterranean climate. Field Crops Research, 150, 29-41.
  135. Özgöz, E., Günay,  H.,  Önen,  H.,  Bayram,  M.,  &  Acir,  N.  (2012 ).  Effect  of  management  on  spatial  and temporal distribution of soil physical properties. Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 18, 77–91.
  136. Pal, N.R., & Pal, S.K. (1993). A review on image segmentation techniques. Pattern Recognition, 26, 1277 – 1294.
  137. Pallottino, F., Biocca, M., Nardi, P., Figorilli, S., Menesatti, P., & Costa, C. (2017). Science mapping approach to analyze the research evolution   on precision   agriculture:   world,   EU   and Italian   situation. Precision Agriculture,
  138. Paoli J. N., Tisseyre B., Strauss O., & McBratney A.B. (2010 ). A technical opportunity index based on a fuzzy footprint of the machine for site-specific management: application to viticulture. Precision Agriculture, 11(4) , 379-396.
  139. Pedroso, M., Taylor, J., Tisseyre, B., Charnomordic, B., & Guillaume, S. (2010 ), A segmentation algorithm for the delineation of management zones, Computer and Electronics in Agriculture, 70, 199–208.
  140. Peralta, N.R., Costa, J.L., Balzarini, M., Franco, M.C., Córdoba, M., & Bullock, D. (2015 ). Delineation of management zones to improve nitrogen management of wheat, Computer and Electronics in Agriculture . 110, 103–113.
  141. Pham, D.L., Xu, C.Y., & Prince, J.L. (2000 ) A survey of current methods in  medical  image  segmentation. Annual review of biomedical engineering, 315–337.
  142. Ping, J.L., & Dobermann, A. (2003). Creating spatially contiguous yield classes for site-specific management. Agronomy Journal, 95, 1121–1131
  143. Ping, J.L, & Dobermann, A. (2005). Processign of yield map data. Precision Agriculture, 6, 193-212.
  144. 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.
  145. R Core Team (2013) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna,  Austria.
  146. Rab, M.A., Fisher, P.D., Armstrong, R.D., Abuzar, M., Robinson, N.J., & Chandra, S. (2009 ). Advances in precision agriculture in south-eastern Australia. IV. Spatial variability in plant-available water capacity of soil and its relationship with yield in site-specific management zones. Crop and Pasture Science, 60, 885-900
  147. Reinke, R., Dankowicz, H., Phelan, J., & Kang, W. (2011 ). A dynamic grain flow model for a mass flow yield sensor on a combine. Precision Agriculture, 12, 732–749
  148. Reitz, P., &  H.  D.  Kutzbach  (1996 ).  Investigations  on  a  particular  yield  mapping  system  for  combine harvesters. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 14, 137–150.
  149. Reza, S.K., Sarkar, D., Baruah, U., & Das, T.H. (2010 ) Evaluation and comparison of ordinary kriging and inverse distance weighting methods for prediction of spatial variability of some chemical parameters of Dhalai district, Tripura. Agropedology, 2, 38–48
  150. Robert, P. C.  (1993 ).  Characterisation  of  soil  conditions  at  the  field  level  for  soil  specific  management. Geoderma 60, 57–72.
  151. Robert, P. C. (1999). Precision agriculture: research needs and status in the USA. In: Precision Agriculture, 99 Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Precision Agriculture, edited by J. V. Stafford (Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield, UK), Part 1, p. 19–33.
  152. Robertson, G.P., Klingensmith, K.M., Klug, M.J., Paul, E.A., Crum, J.R., & Ellis B.G. (1997 ). Soil resources, microbial activity, and primary production across an agricultural ecosystem. Ecological Applications, 7, 158 – 70
  153. Robertson, M., Lyle, G.,  &  Bowden,  J.  W.  (2008).  Within-field  variability  of  wheat  yield  and  economic implications for spatially variable nutrient management. Field Crops Research, 105, 211-220.
  154. Robinson, T. P., & Metternicht, G. (2005). Comparing the performance of techniques to improve the quality of yield maps. Agricultural Systems, 85, 19–41
  155. Rodeghiero, M., &   Cescatti,   A.   (2008 ).   Spatial   variability   and   optimal   sampling   strategy   of   soil respiration. Forest Ecology and Management, 255, 106-112
  156. Roland Berger Strategy Consultants (2016 ). Business opportunities in Precision Agriculture: Will Big Data feed the world  in  the  future  ?  (accessed on 05/06/2018)
  157. Roudier, P., Tisseyre,  B.,  Poilvé,  H.,  &  Roger,  J.  (2008). Management  zone  delineation  using  a  modified watershed algorithm. Precision Agriculture, 9, 233–250.
  158. Roudier, P., Tisseyre,  B.,  Poilvé,  H.,  &  Roger,  J.  (2011). A  technical  opportunity  index  adapted  to  zone specific management. Precision Agriculture, 12, 130–145.
  159. Röver, M., & Kaiser, E. A. (1999). Spatial heterogeneity within the plough layer: low and mod erate variability of soil properties. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 31, 175-187.
  160. Sadras, V. & Bongiovanni, R. (2004 ). Use of Lorenz curves and Gini coefficients to assess yield inequality within paddocks. Field Crops Research, 90, 303–310
  161. Santesteban, L. G., Guillaume,  S.,  Royo,  J.  B.,  &  Tisseyre,  B.  (2013 )  Are  precision  agriculture  tools  and methods relevant at the wholevineyard scale? Precision Agriculture, 14, 2–17.
  162. Sawant, K. (2014).  Adaptive  methods  for  determining  DBSCAN  parameters. International  Jou rnal  of Innovative Science, Engineering & Technology, 1, 330-334
  163. Say, M., Keskin,  M.,  Sehri,  M.,  &  Sekerli,  Y.E.  (2017 ).  Adoption  of  precision  agriculture  technologies  in developed and developing countries. International Science and Technology Conference, July 17-19, Berlin
  164. Schimmelpfennig, David (2016).  Farm  Profits  and  Adoption  of  Precision  Agriculture.  No.  249773. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
  165. Schueller, J. K. (1997). Technology for precision agriculture. In J.V. S tafford (Ed.), Precision Agriculture’ 97(pp. 19–33). Oxford, UK: BIOS Scientific Publishers.
  166. Serrano, J.M., Peça, J.O., Marques da Silva, J. R., & Shahidian, S. (2010). Mapping soil and pasture variability with an electromagnetic induction sensor. Computers and Electronic in Agriculture, 73, 1, 7–16.
  167. Shahandeh, H., Wright,  A.L.,  Hons,  F.M.,  &  Lascano,  R.J.  (2005 ).  Spatial  and  temporal  variation  of  soil nitrogen parameters related to soil texture and corn yield. Agronomy Journal, 97, 772–782
  168. Shockley, J. M., Dillon, C. R., & Stombaugh, T. S. (2011 ). A whole farm analysis of the influence of autosteer navigation on net returns, risk, and production practices. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , 43, 57–75.
  169. Silva, J.V., Reidsma,  P.,  Laborte,  A.,  &  van  Ittersum,  M.K.  (2016 ).  Explaining  rice  yield  gaps  in  Central Luzon, Phillippines: an application of stochastic  frontier analysis and crop modelling. European Journal of Agronomy j.eja.2016.06.017.
  170. Simbahan, G.C., Dobermann,  A.,  &  Ping,  J.L.  (2004). Screening  yield  monitor  data  improves  grain  yield maps. Agronomy Journal, 96, 1091-1102
  171. Song, X., Wang, J., Huang, W., Liu, L., Yan, G., & Pu, R. (2009 ) The delineation of agricultural management zones with high resolution remotely sensed data. Precision Agriculture, 10, 471–487.
  172. Spekken, M., Anselmi, A. A., & Molin, J. P. (2013 ). A simple method for filtering spatial data. In J.V. Stafford (Ed.), Precision agriculture’13: Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on precision agriculture. The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers, pp 259-266.
  173. Stenger, R., Priesack, E., & Beese, F. (2002). Spatial variation of nitrate– N and related soil properties at the plot-scale. Geoderma, 105, 259-275.
  174. Stoorvogel, J., &  Bouma,  J.  (2005).  Precision  agriculture  :  the  solution  to  control  nutrient  emissions  ? In Stafford,  J.,  editor,  Precision  agriculture  ’05  :  Proceedings  of  the  5th  European  Conference  on  Precision Agriculture, pages 47_55, Uppsala, Sweden. Wageningen Academic Publishers.
  175. Sudduth, K.A., Drummond, S.T., Birrell, S.J., & Kitchen, N.R. (1997 ). Spatial modeling of crop yield using soil and topographic data. In Proceedings of the First European Conference on Precision Agriculture, 439 – 447.
  176. Sudduth, K., & Drummond, S. T. (2007). Yield Editor : Software for Removing Errors from Crop Yield Maps. Agronomy Journal, 99, 1471.
  177. Sudduth, K.A., Drummond, S.T., Myers, D.B., Anatole, H. (2012 ). Yield editor 2.0: Software for automated removal of yield  map  errors. In:  Proceedings  of  the American  Society  of  Agricultural  and  Biological Engineers International (ASABE)
  178. Sun, B., Zhou, S., & Zhao, Q. (2003). Evaluation of  spatial and temporal changes of  soil quality based on geostatistical analysis in the hill region of subtropical China. Geoderma, 115, 85-99.
  179. Sun, W., Whelan,  B.,  McBratney,  A.B.,  &  Minasny,  B.  (2013 ).  An  integrated  framework  for  software  to provide  yield  data  cleaning  and  estimation  of  an  opportunity  index  for  site-specific  crop  management. Precision Agriculture, 14, 376–391.
  180. Sykuta, M. E. (2016 ). Big Data in Agriculture: Property Rights, Privacy and Competition in Ag Data Services. International Food and  Agribusiness  Management  Review  Special  Issue,  19(A).  Syngenta  Foundation  for Sustainable Agriculture. FarmForce.
  181. Tagarakis, A., Liakos, V.,  Fountas,  S.,  Koundouras,  S.,  &  Gemtos,  T.A.  (2013 ).  Management  zones delineation using fuzzy clustering techniques in grapevines. Precision Agriculture, 14, 18-39.
  182. Tarabalka, Y., Chanussot, J., & Benediktsson, J.A. (2010). Segmentation and classification of hyperspectral images using watershed transformation. Pattern Recognition, 43, 2367-2379.
  183. Taylor, R.K., Kluitenberg, G.J., Schrock, M.D., Zhang, N., Schmidt, J.P., & Havlin, J.L. (2001 ). Using yield monitor data to determine spatial crop production potential. American Society of Agricultural Engineers , 44, 1409-1414.
  184. Taylor, J., Tisseyre, B., Bramley, R., & Reid, A. (2005 ). A comparison of the spatial variability of vineyard yield in European  and  Australian  production  systems. In: Stafford,  J.  V.  (Ed.),  Proceedings  of  the  4th European Conference on Precision Agriculture. The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers, pp 907 -914.
  185. Taylor, J. A., Mcbratney, A. B., & Whelan, B. M. (2007 ). Establishing Management Classes for Broadacre Agricultural Production. Agronomy Journal, 99, 1366–1376.
  186. Taylor, J., Acevedo-Opazo, C., Ojeda, H., & Tisseyre, B. (2010 ). Identification and significance of sources of spatial variation in grapevine water status. Australian Journal of vine and wine research, 16, 218-226
  187. Taylor, J.A., & Bates, T.R. (2013 ). A discussion on the significance associated with Pearson’s correlation in precision agriculture studies. Precision Agriculture, 14, 558-564.
  188. Tisseyre, B., &McBratney, A. (2008). A technical opportunity i ndex based on mathematical morphology for site-specific management: an application to viticulture. Precision Agriculture, 9, 101–113.
  189. Tisseyre, B. (2012).  Peut-on  appliquer  le  concept  d’agriculture  de  precision  a  la  viticulture  ?  Mémoire d’habilitation à diriger des recherches. CNECA no3. Montpellier.
  190. Tisseyre, B, Leroux, C., Pichon, L., Geraudie, V., & Sari, T. (2018). How to define the optimal grid si ze to map high spatial resolution data. Precision Agriculture.
  191. Tobler, W. (1970) A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region. Economic Geography , 46, 234-240
  192. Tozer, P. &  Isbister,  I.  (2007).  Is  it  economically  feasible  to  harvest  by  management  zone  ? Precision Agriculture, 8, 151-159.
  193. Tullberg J.N., Yule D.F., & McGarry D. (2007). Controlled traffic farming— From research to adoption in Australia. Soil and Tillage Research, 97, 2, p. 272-281.
  194. USDA (2015). Agricultural  resource  management  survey:  US  rice  industry. United  States  Department  of Agriculture (USDA) National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) Highlights. No 2015-2. 4 pp.
  195. Van Dijk, M., Morley, T., Jongeneel, R., van Ittersum, M., Reidsma, P., & Ruben, R. (2017 ). Disentangling agronomic and economic  yield  gaps:  An  integrated  framework  and  application. Agricultural  Systems ,  154, 90-99.
  196. Van Ittersum, M.K., Cassman, K.G., Grassini, P., Wolf, J., Tittonell, P., & Hochman, Z. (2012 ). Yield gap analysis with local to global relevance—A review. Field Crops Research, 143, 4-17.
  197. Vasu, D., Singh,  S.  K.,  Sahu,  N., Tiwary,  P.,  Chandran,  P.,  Duraisami,  V.  P.,  et  al. (2017).  Assessment  of spatial variability of soil properties using geospatial techniques for farm level nutrient management. Soil and Tillage Research, 169, 25-34.
  198. Vincent, L., &  Soille,  P.  (1991 ).  Watersheds  in  digital  spaces:  an  efficient  algorithm  based  on  immersion simulations. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 13, 583–598.
  199. Vinh, N.X., Chan, J., Romano, S., Bailey, J., Leckie, C., Ramamohanarao, K., & Pei, J. (2016 ). Discovering outlying aspects in large datasets. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 1–36.
  200. Wang, D., Prato, T., Qiu, Z., Kitchen, N., & Sudduth, K. (2003 ). Economic and Environmental Evaluation of Variable Rate Nitrogen and Lime Application for Claypan Soil Fields. Precision Agriculture, 4, 35-52
  201. Wathes, C.M., Kristensen,  H.H.,  Aerts,  J.M.,  &  Berckmans,  D.  (2008 ).  Is  precision  livestock  farming  an engineer ‘s daydream or nightmare, an animal’s friend or foe, and a farmer’s panacea or pitfall? Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 64, 2-10.
  202. Weisstein, E.W. (2002)   “Lambert   W-function,” MathWorld,     A     Wolfram     Web     Resource., (Last accessed 10 August 2017)
  203. Whelan, B., & McBratney, A. (2000). The null  hypothesis  of precision agriculture  management. Precision Agriculture, 2, 265_279.
  204. Wolfert, S., L. Ge,  C.  Verdouw,  &  M.-J.  Bogaardt  (2017).  “Big  Data  in  Smart  Farming – A  review.” Agricultural Systems, 153, 69-80
  205. Wu, J., Norvell, W. A., Hopkins, D. G., & Welch, R. M. (2002 ). Spatial variability of grain cadmium and soil characteristics in a durum wheat field. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 66, 268-275.
  206. Xin-Zhong, W., Guo-Shun,  L.,  Hong-Chao,  H.,  Zhen-Hai,  W.,  Qing-Hua,  L.,  Xu-Feng,  L.,  et  al.  (2009 ). Determination of management zones for a tobacco field based on soil fertility. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 65(2), 168-175.
  207. Yost, M.A., Kitchen, N.R., Sudduth, K.A., Sadler, E.J., Drummond, S.T., & Volkmann, M.R. (2017). Long -term impact of a precision agriculture system on grain crop production. Precision Agriculture, 18, 823-842
  208. Zadeh, L. (1964) Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8, 338–353.
  209. Zane, L., Tisseyre, B., Guillaume, S., & Charnomordic, B. (2013). Within-field zoning using a region growing algorithm guided by geostatistical analysis. In Proceedings of Precision Agriculture, 313-319
  210. Zhang, X., Jiang,  J.,  Qiu,  X.,  Wang,  J,  &  Zhu,  Y.  (2016 ). An  improved  method  of  delineating  rectangular management zones using a semivariogram-based technique. Computers and electronics in Agriculture , 121, 74-83
  211. Zhao, J., Lu, C., & Kou. Y. (2003). Detecting Region Outliers in Meteorological Data. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM International Symposium on Advances in Geographic Information Systems, 49– 55, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
  212. Zhao, C., Huang, W., Chen, L., Meng, Z., Wang, Y., & Xu, F. (2010 ). A harvest area measurement system based on ultrasonic sensors and DGPS for yield map correction. Precision Agriculture, 11, 163-180.

Support Aspexit’s blog posts on TIPEEE

A small donation to continue to offer quality content and to always share and popularize knowledge =) ?

Share this article!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *