Professional Documents
Culture Documents
(IJRSA)
Department of Science, Engineering, and Technology Gainesville State College, 3820 Mundy Mill Road, Idaho, USA
2
Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering Department North Dakota State University, Idaho, USA
3
Department of Geosciences, Idaho State University, Idaho, USA
spanda@gsc.edu
I.
INTRODUCTION
-11-
(IJRSA)
detect water stress areas, suggesting corrective measures to
enhance yield.
-12-
(IJRSA)
In 1997, corn was grown in the SW, SE and the nonirrigated corners of the field. Twenty (8 + 8 + 4) grid images
were extracted from the aerial image. The maximum possible
36 grid images were extracted from the study area in 1998.
Twenty grid images were extracted from the SW and SE
quadrants of the study area in 2000. Only 16 grid images were
extracted from NW and NE quadrants' aerial images in 2001.
Thus, a total of 92 images were available for the development
of the yield prediction model.
C.
1997
1998
2000
2001
28
54
37
34
10 south
24
11
10 starter + 112
(variable rate)
10May south
25-Apr
24-Apr
8-May
Pioneer 3751
Pioneer 3751
Pioneer 3751
74,100
74,100
74,100
74,100
Emergence
27-May
10-May
6-May
15-May
Sidedress Date
23-June
26-June
26-June
n/a
168
134
157
n/a
56
45
84
56
1 October
9 September
15 September
26 September
2 August
30 July
29 July
2 August
13 October
1 October
15 September
4 October
15 May
28 April
16 May
26 May
28 October
23 October
13 October
23 October
Preplant N (kg/ha)
Planting date
Corn Variety
-1
Sidedress amount
(kg N ha-1)
Fertigation amount
(kg N ha-1)
-13-
(IJRSA)
YGP =
X
i =1
(1)
Figure 3. The basal crop coefficient curve for calculation of corn ET (from
Stegman and Coe, 1984)
Image Processing
Data from all spectral bands include a certain degree of
redundancy (Fung and LeDrew, 1987). Principal component
analysis (PCA) analyzes correlated multidimensional data
(Byne et al., 1980). PCA is a linear transformation that
reorganizes the variance in a multi-band image into a new set
of image bands. Each individual band in the output PCA image
receives some contribution from all of the input image's bands.
Therefore, the principal component band accounting for
highest variability (more than 82%) of the individual bands
gray scale information was used for this study. Principal
component band images for both vegetation and soil images for
all four years were extracted. For all the multi band images the
first principal component band (PC1) contained more than 82%
information.
E.
Figure 1. A typical aerial (vegetation) image (August 2, 1997) of the field site
with lysimeyters and grid plot positions.
Figure 2. The input features and output feature used for the neural network
yield prediction model building.
-14-
(IJRSA)
period of 54 days, which ranged from 50 to 95%. In 2001, 19
days were observed in which SMD ranged from 50 to 65%.
(2)
(3)
(4)
For this study, Kco was based upon curves developed for
corn in North Dakota (Stegman et al., 1977). These curves are
fitted by fourth order polynomials, i.e.,
K co = C 1 + C 2 DPE + C 3 DPE2 + C 4 DPE3 + C 5 DPE4 (5)
where DPE is days past emergence and the coefficients are as
follows: C 1 = - 0.1814466119, C 2 = 1.877271 x 10-4, C 3 =
7.004694 x 10-4, C 4 = - 9.3707 x 10-6, and C 5 = 3.12 x 10-8.
A mathematical artifact of equation (5) is that the curve
increases after 140 days past emergence, implying increasing
crop water use late in the season. To avoid this difficulty,
simulations were not extended beyond the date of crop maturity.
1,
if
AW
>
50%
(6a)
K a = AW / 50, if AW < 50%
i =1
ET Calculation
Rain gauges were placed in each quadrant to measure
rainfall and irrigation amounts, including the non-irrigated
corner areas to record rainfall. Rainfall and irrigation amounts
were separated based on the rainfall reading acquired by rain
gauges in the non-irrigated corners. Temperature, solar
radiation, AGDD, and reference evapotranspiration (ET 0 ) were
considered uniform for the entire field site and obtained from
the North Dakota Agriculture Weather Network (NDAWN)
weather station located 2.4 km from the site. Each rainfall
event was treated as constant for each quadrant in the study
area, while irrigation amount, soil moisture level, drainage
amount, ET 0 , and crop yield were constants for each lysimeter
(i.e., each grid image) position. We used the climatologic and
non-climatologic information of the non-freeze period of crop
season for each year (Table 1) and rainfall and irrigation
amount from plant emergence to the plant maturity dates
(Table 1).
G.
(6b)
as
hi ( x) = 0.5*
(|| x ci ||) 2
(8)
-15-
(IJRSA)
y j ( x) = W ji hi ( x) + bk ,
(9)
i =1
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9.5
10.5
11.5
RMSE =
MSE =
SSE ,
n
(10)
1 n |Y X |
= 1
x 100,
n i =1
Y
(11)
-16-
[(Y
SEP =
i =1
X i ) d m ]2
(IJRSA)
whereQ n = at 90% confidence interval Q for n replicate
measure, R = range of all data points, Ya = the suspected outlier,
and Y b = the data point closest to it. In case of our data set, we
determined Q value for each individual estimated ET value.
Outliers were determined by the highest corresponding Q-value.
(12)
n 1
1 n( xi x ) 2
+
C .I . = Y t / 2 * S e *
n
S xx
^
(13)
(14)
Sti =
^
Cri
x
i
xi
Crj
j =1
(1 Leverage )
i
n f
(15)
Ya Yb
R
(17)
(16)
The C.I. test was carried out using the predicted yield and
the corresponding seasonal calculated ET data set. The analysis
of the test verified the data outside the 95% C.I., showing those
as potential outliers. Finally, those outliers were omitted from
the yield versus ET data set. A new linear regression model
was created.
III.
-17-
(IJRSA)
variety of crop production input features (i.e., total
environment) shows promise. Another study by Seidel et al.
(2000) used the correction normalized vegetation index (NVI)
technique to predict soybean yields. The model was developed
using only one year (1994) training data from one field, two
and three years of training data from other fields, and was
tested only with another year. The R2 (coefficient of
determination) between the NVI and the soybean crop yield
ranged from 0.05 to 0.69. The lower R2 obtained with their
model may have been caused by the use of the vegetation
spectral information only from a single year. Therefore, this
study shows the importance of including multiple years to
incorporate environmental variation into the corn yield
modeling. Even Seidel et al. (2000) obtained good R2 when
they used multiple years input data for soybean yield prediction.
TABLE 2. RESULTS OBTAINED FROM THE OPTIMAL MODEL SEVERAL RUNS AFTER NETWORK INITIALIZATION
Run #
Training
1
2
3
Test
RMSE
Correlation
RMSE
Correlation
0.09
0.97
0.17
0.79
0.58
88.16
0.09
0.97
0.17
0.79
0.58
88.16
0.09
0.97
0.17
0.49
0.58
88.15
0.11
0.96
0.12
0.58
0.65
90.67
0.11
0.96
0.12
0.58
0.65
90.68
0.06
0.95
0.17
0.25
0.29
87.12
0.11
0.96
0.12
0.58
0.65
90.67
0.16
0.56
0.13
0.60
0.70
90.68
0.09
0.97
0.17
0.28
0.33
87.49
0.12
0.66
0.12
0.62
0.66
90.89
0.17
0.79
0.12
0.58
0.69
90.68
0.12
0.82
0.12
0.62
0.69
90.68
0.17
0.61
0.14
0.40
0.46
90.30
0.16
0.56
0.13
0.60
0.70
90.68
0.12
0.66
0.12
0.62
0.66
90.68
0.12
0.83
0.14
0.56
0.59
89.71
0.03
0.17
0.02
0.15
0.13
1.41
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Average
Standard
Deviation
a
Correlation information relates to the actual yield and the model predicted yield at the time of network training and testing.
TABLE 3. SUMMARY OBTAINED FROM NEURAL NETWORK AND REGRESSION ANALYSIS
Optimal model architecture and parameters
Model
LR
Iterations
Average
prediction
accuracy
(%)
RMSE
SEP
(t/ha)
RMSE
(t/ha)
Training
11-6-0-1
0.9
0.4
20,000
0.1303
90.59
-3.79
1.3
6
0.8
7
1.12
1.11
Test
11-6-0-1
0.9
0.4
20,000
0.1271
90.67
0.38
1.0
0
0.6
5
1.02
1.08
-18-
(IJRSA)
Abbreviations: LR = learning rate coefficient, M = momentum coefficient, RMSE = root mean square error, = intercept, = slope, r = correlation coefficient,
and SEP = standard error of prediction.
-19-
(IJRSA)
The studentized residual test and the Q-test were carried
out using the ET data (Figures 8 and 9). The residual analyses
suggest that there were four outliers present in the dataset, two
from the non-irrigated part of 1997 and one each from the
irrigated quarters of 1998 and 2001, respectively. These four
data were either exceptionally high or low compared to other
28 ET values. We later confirmed that lysimeters
malfunctioned in those plots in the corresponding years.
Therefore, we omitted those residuals and another linear ET
versus predicted yield regression model was created using the
remaining 28 data points, including data from all four years.
The revised linear regression curve presented in Figure 10
shows an improved R2 of 0.81. The 95% confidence intervals
were also calculated showing that estimated ET versus
predicted yield model fits the data reasonably well.
Figure 6. Actual and predicted corn yield correlation curve using the test data.
-19-
(IJRSA)
Figure 10. Seasonal estimated ET vs. Predicted corn yield (n=28) after
omission of outliers.
Figure 11. Comparison curve of actual and predicted estimated ET from the
ET vs. yield linear regression model (n=28).
Ali, M.H., Hoque, M.R., Hassan, A.A., Khair, A., 2007. Effects of
deficit irrigation on yield, water productivity, and economic returns of
wheat. Agricultural Water Management. 92(3), 151-161.
-20-
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
(IJRSA)
[20] Lee, J., Beach, C.D., Tepedeleliogu, N., 1996. Channel equalization
using radial basis function network. IEEE Conference on Signal
Processing, 1996.
[21] Lillesand T.M., Keifer, R.W., 1995. Remote Sensing and Image
Interpretation. John Willey and Sons, New York, NY.
[22] Moody, J., Darken, C.J., 1989. Fast learning in networks of locally
tuned processing units. Neural Computation. 1, 281-294.
[23] Neural Ware, 2000. Reference Guide of NeuralWare. NeuralWare,
Carnegie, PA.
[24] Panda, S.S., 2003. Data mining application in production management
of crop. Ph.D. Dissertation, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND,
USA.
[25] Ranaweera, D.K., Hubele, N.F., Papalexopoulos, A.D., 1995.
Application of radial basis function neural network model for short-term
load forecasting. IEEE Proc.-Generation Transmission Distribution.
142(1), 45-50.
[26] Seidel, M.S., Paz, J.O., Batchlor, W.D., 2000. Integrating remotely
sensed images to improve spatial crop model calibration. ASAE Paper
No. 003057. St. Joseph, MI.
[27] Steele, D.D., Stegman, E.C., and Knighton, R.E., 2000. Irrigation
management for corn in the northern great plains, USA. Irrigation
Science. 19, 107-114.
[28] Stegman, E.C., 1982. Corn grain yield as influenced by timing of
evapotranspiration deficits. Irrigation Science. 3, 75-87.
[29] Stegman, E.C., 1986. Efficient irrigation timing methods for corn
production. Transaction of the ASAE. 29(1), 203-210.
[30] Stegman, E.C., Coe, D.A., 1984. Water balance irrigation scheduling
based on Jensen_Haise equation: Software for Apple II, II +, and IIE
computers. North Dakota Research Report No. 100. ND Agricultural
Experiment Station. North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND.
[31] Stegman, E.C., Bauer, A., Zubriski, J. C., Bauder, J., 1977. Crop curves
for water balance irrigation scheduling in south eastern North Dakota.
North Dakota Research Report No. 66. ND Agricultural Expe riment
Station. North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND.
[32] Terjung, W.H., Liverman, D.M., Hayes, J.T., ORourke, P.A.,
Todhunter, P.E., 1984. Climatic change and water requirements for
grain corn in the North American Great Plains. Climatic Change. 6, 193220.
[33] Timlin, D. J., Pachepsky, Y., Snyder, V. A., Brynt, R.B., 1998. Spatial
and temporal variability of corn grain yield on a hill slope. Journal of
Soil Science Society of America. 62,764-773.
[34] Wan, C., Harrington, P.B., 1999. Self-configuring radial basis function
neural networks for chemical pattern recognition. Journal of Chemical
Information Computer Science. 39, 1049-1056.
[35] Xin, J., Zazueta, F.S., Smajstrla, A.G., Wheaton, T.A., Jones, J.W.,
Jones, P.H., Dankel II, D.D., 1997. CIMS: An integrated real time
computer system for citrus micro irrigation management. Applied
Engineering in Agriculture. 13(6), 785-790.
[36] Zhuang, X., Engel, B., 1990. Classification of multi-spectral remote
sensing data using neural network vs. statistical methods. ASAE Paper
No. 90-7552. St. Joseph, MI
[14] GopalaPillai, S., Tian, L., 1999. In-field variability detection and yield
prediction in corn using digital aerial imaging. Transactions of the
ASAE. 42(6), 1911-1920.
[15] Hanks, R.J., 1983. Yield and water use relationships: An overview. In
limitations to efficient water use in crop production (H. M. Taylor et al.,
eds.). American Society of Agronomy. Monograph. Madison, WI, 393410.
[16] Haykin, S., 1999. Neural networks: A Comprehensive Foundation,
Second Edition. Prentice Hall Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ.
[17] Jensen, M.E., Wright, J.L., Pratt, B.J. 1971. Estimating soil moisture
depletion from climatic crop and soil data. Transaction of the ASAE.
14(5), 954-959.
[18] Jensen, M.E., Haise, H.R., 1963. Estimating evapotranspiration from
solar radiation. Journal of Irrigation Drainage. 89, 15-41.
[19] Klocke, N.L., Hubbard, K.G., Kranz, W.L., Watts, D.G., 1996.
Evapotranspiration (ET) or crop water use. Neb Guide. G90-992-A.
www.ianr.unl.edu/pubs/irrigation/g992.htm.
-21-