Advertisement

Precision Agriculture

, Volume 14, Issue 5, pp 558–564 | Cite as

A discussion on the significance associated with Pearson’s correlation in precision agriculture studies

  • J. A. Taylor
  • T. R. Bates
Short Discusssion

Abstract

Pearson’s correlation is a commonly used descriptive statistic in many published precision agriculture studies, not only in the Precision Agriculture Journal, but also in other journals that publish in this domain. Very few of these articles take into consideration auto-correlation in data when performing correlation analysis, despite a statistical solution being available. A brief discussion on the need to consider auto-correlation and the effective sample size when using Pearson’s correlation in precision agriculture research is presented. The discussion is supported by an example using spatial data on vine size and canopy vigour in a juice-grape vineyard. The example data demonstrated that the p-value of the correlation between vine size and canopy vigour increased when auto-correlation was accounted for, potentially to a non-significant level depending on the desired α-level. The example data also demonstrated that the method by which data are processed (interpolated) to achieve co-located data will also affect the amount of auto-correlation and the effective sample size. The results showed that for the same variables, with different approaches to data co-location, a lower r-value may have a lower p-value and potentially hold more statistical significance.

Keywords

Auto-correlation Pruning weight NDVI 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the diligence and efforts of the technical staff at CLEREL during the collection of the NDVI and pruning weight data.

References

  1. 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(4), 457–472. doi: 10.1007/s11119-012-9261-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beale, C. M., Lennon, J. J., Yearsley, J. M., Brewer, M. J., & Elston, D. A. (2010). Regression analysis of spatial data. Ecology Letters, 13, 246–264.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clifford, P., Richardson, S., & Hemon, D. (1989). Testing the association between two spatial processes. Biometrics, 45, 123–134.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Curran, P. J. (1983). Multispectral remote sensing for the estimation of green leaf area index. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London A, 309, 257–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dormann, C. F., McPherson, J. M., Araujo, M. B., Bivand, R., Bolliger, J., Carl, G., et al. (2007). Methods to account for spatial autocorrelation in the analysis of species distributional data: A review. Ecography, 30, 609–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Drissi, R., Goutouly, J.-P., Forget, D., & Gaudillere, J.-P. (2009). Nondestructive measurement of grapevine leaf area by ground normalized difference vegetation index. Agronomy Journal, 101(1), 226–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dutilleul, P. (1993). Modifying the t-test for assessing the correlation between two spatial processes. Biometrics, 49, 305–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hall, A., Lamb, D. W., Holzapfel, B. P., & Louis, J. P. (2011). Within-season temporal variation in correlations between vineyard canopy and winegrape composition and yield. Precision Agriculture, 12(1), 103–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jordan, T. D., Pool, R. M., Zabadal, T. J., & Tompkins, J. P. (1981). Cultural practices for commercial vineyards; miscellaneous bulletin 111. Geneva: New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.Google Scholar
  10. Minasny, B., McBratney, A. B., & Whelan, B. M. (2005). VESPER version 1.62. Precision Agriculture Laboratory, Faculty of Agriculture and Environment, University of Sydney, NSW 2006. http://sydney.edu.au/agriculture/pal/software/vesper.shtml. Accessed 16 April 2013.
  11. Rosenberg, M. S., & Anderson, C. D. (2011). PASSaGE: Pattern Analysis, Spatial Statistics and Geographic Exegesis. Version 2. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 2(3), 229–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Rouse, J. W., Haas, R. H., Schell, J. A., & Deering, D. W. (1973). Monitoring vegetation systems in the Great Plains with ERTS. In S. C. Freden, E. P. Mercanti & M. A. Becker (Eds.), Third Earth Resource Technology Satellite (ERTS) Symposium (Vol. 1, pp. 309–317). Washington, DC: NASA. Special Publication SP-351.Google Scholar
  13. Stamatiadis, S., Taskos, D., Tsadila, E., Christofides, C., Tsadilas, C., & Schepers, J. S. (2010). Comparison of passive and active canopy sensors for the estimation of vine biomass production. Precision Agriculture, 11, 306–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Whelan, B. M., McBratney, A. B., & Minasny, B. (2001). Vesper - Spatial prediction software for precision agriculture. In G. Grenier & S. Blackmore (Eds.), ECPA 2001Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Precision Agriculture (pp. 139–144). Montpellier: agro-Montpellier. FR.Google Scholar
  15. Yang, C., & Everitt, J. H. (2012). Using spectral distance, spectral angle and plant abundance derived from hyperspectral imagery to characterize crop yield variation. Precision Agriculture, 13(1), 62–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cornell Lake Erie Research and Extension Laboratory, Department of HorticultureCornell UniversityPortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations