Advertisement

Precision Agriculture

, Volume 8, Issue 6, pp 297–310 | Cite as

Separating spatial and temporal sources of variation for model testing in precision agriculture

  • E. John Sadler
  • Kenneth A. Sudduth
  • James W. Jones
Article

Abstract

The application of crop simulation models in precision agriculture research appears to require only the specification of some input parameters and then running the model for each desired location in a field. Reports in the extensive literature on modeling have described independent tests for different cultivars, soil types and weather, and these have been presumed to validate the model performance in general. However, most of these tests have evaluated model performance for simulating mean yields for multiple plots in yield trials or in other large-area studies. Precision agriculture requires models to simulate not only the mean, but also the spatial variation in yield. No consensus has emerged about how to test model performance rigorously, or what level of performance is sufficient. In addition, many measures of goodness of fit between the observed and simulated data (i.e., model performance) depend on the range of variation in the observed data. If, for example, inter-annual and spatial sources of variation are combined in a test, poor performance in one might be masked by good performance in the other. Our objectives are to: (1) examine research aims that are common in precision agriculture, (2) discuss expectations of model performance, and (3) compare several traditional and some alternative measures of model performance. These measures of performance are explained with examples that illustrate their limitations and strengths. The risk of relying on a test that combines spatial and temporal data was shown with data where the overall fit was good (r 2  > 0.8), but the fit within any year was zero. Information gained using these methods can both guide and help to build confidence in future modeling efforts in precision agriculture.

Keywords

Model evaluation Validation Spatial variation Temporal variation 

References

  1. Braga, R. P., & Jones, J. W. (2004). Using optimization to estimate soil inputs of crop models for use in site-specific management. Transactions of the ASAE, 47, 1821–1831.Google Scholar
  2. Ferreyra, R. A., Jones, J. W., & Graham, W. D. (2006). Parameterizing spatial crop models with inverse modeling: sources of error and unexpected results. Transactions of the ASABE, 49, 1547–1561.Google Scholar
  3. Hawking, S. W. (1988). A brief history of time: From the big bang to black holes (208 pp) New York, NY, USA: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
  4. Konikow, L. F., & Bredehoeft, J. D. (1992). Ground-water models cannot be validated. Advances in Water Resources, 15, 75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Krause, P., Boyle, D. P., & Bäse, F. (2005). Comparison of different efficiency criteria for hydrological model assessment. Advances in Geosciences, 5, 89–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Little, T. M., & Hills, F. J. (1978). Agricultural experimentation. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Mathews, B. P., & Diamantopoulos, A. (1994). Towards a taxonomy of forecast error measures—A factor-comparative investigation of forecast error dimension. Journal of Forecasting, 13, 409–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Moriasi, D. N., Arnold, J. G., Van Liew, M. W., Bingner, R. L., Harmel, R. D., & Veith, T. (2007). Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Transactions of the ASABE, 50, 885–900.Google Scholar
  9. Nash, J. E., & Sutcliffe, J. V. (1970). River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I—A discussion of principles. Journal of Hydrology, 10, 282–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Neter, J., Wasserman, W., Kutner, M. H. (1985). Applied linear statistical models (2nd ed., 1127 pp). Homewood, IL, USA: Richard C. Irwin.Google Scholar
  11. Oreskes, N., Shrader-Frechette, K., & Belitz, K. (1994). Verification, validation, and confirmation of numerical models in the earth sciences. Science, 263, 641–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery (480 pp) New York, NY, USA: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  13. Sadler, E. J., & Russell, G. (1997). Modeling crop yield for site-specific management. In F. J. Pierce & E. J. Sadler (Eds.), The state of site-specific management for agriculture (pp. 69–79) Madison, WI, USA: ASA, CSSA, SSSA.Google Scholar
  14. Sadler, E. J., Barnes, E. M., Batchelor, W. D., Paz, J., & Irmak, A. (2002). Addressing spatial variability in crop model applications. In L. R. Ahuja, L. Ma, & T. A. Howell (Eds.), Agricultural system models in field research and technology transfer (pp. 253–264) Boca Raton, FL, USA: Lewis Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
  15. Sadler, E. J., Busscher, W. J., Stone, K. C., Bauer, P. J., Evans, D. E., & Millen, J. A. (1998). Site-specific modeling of corn yield in the SE coastal plain. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Geospatial Information in Agriculture and Forestry (pp. i214–i221). Ann Arbor, MI, USA: ERIM International.Google Scholar
  16. Sadler, E. J., Gerwig, B. K., Evans, D. E., Busscher, W. J., & Bauer, P. J. (2000). Site-specific modeling of corn yield in the SE coastal plain. Agricultural Systems, 64, 189–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Wang, F., Fraisse, C. W., Kitchen, N. R., & Sudduth, K. A. (2003). Site-specific evaluation of the CROPGRO-soybean model on Missouri claypan soils. Agricultural Systems, 76, 985–1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Webster, R. (1997). Regression and functional relations. European Journal of Soil Science, 48, 557–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. John Sadler
    • 1
  • Kenneth A. Sudduth
    • 1
  • James W. Jones
    • 2
  1. 1.USDA-ARSColumbiaUSA
  2. 2.University of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations