Author:
Gauci A. A.,Fulton J. P.,Lindsey A.,Shearer S. A.,Barker D.,Hawkins E. M.
Abstract
AbstractOn-farm research (OFR) has become popular as a result of precision agriculture technology simplifying the process and farm software capabilities to summarize results collected through the technology. Different OFR designs exists with strip-trials being a simple approach to evaluate different treatments. Common in OFR is the use of yield monitors to collect crop performance data since yield represents a primary response variable in these type studies. The objective was to investigate the ability of grain yield monitoring technologies to accurately inform strip trials when frequent yield variability exists within an experimental unit. A combination of six sub-plot treatment resolutions (TR) that differed in length of imposed yield variation (7.6, 15.2, 30.5, 61.0, 121.9, and 243.8 m) were harvested at combine ground speeds of 3.2, 6.4, 7.2, and 8.1 kph, depending on study site (three study sites total). Intentional yield differences in maize (Zea mays L.) were created for each sub-plot by alternating the amount nitrogen (N) applied: 0 or 202 kg N/ha. Yield was measured by four commercially available yield monitoring (YM) technologies and a weigh wagon. Comparisons were made between the accumulated mass of the YM technology and weigh wagon through percent differences along with testing the significance of the plotted relationship between YM and weigh wagon. Results indicated that yield monitoring technology can be used to evaluate strip trial performance regardless of yield frequency and variability (error < 3%) within an experimental unit when operating within the calibrated range of the mass flow sensor. Operating outside of the calibrated range of the mass flow sensor resulted in > 15% error in estimating accumulated weight and overestimation of yield by 23%. Finally, no significant differences existed in estimating accumulated weight values between grain yield monitor technologies (all p-values ≥ 0.54).
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Agricultural and Biological Sciences
Reference13 articles.
1. Al-Mahasneh, M. A., & Colvin, T. S. (2000). Verification of yield monitor performance for on-the-go measurement of yield with an in-board electronic scale. Transactions of the ASABE, 43(4), 801–807.
2. Banu, S. (2015). Precision agriculture: Tomorrow’s technology for today’s farmer. Journal of Food Processing & Technology, 6(8), 468–473. https://doi.org/10.4172/2157-7110.1000468
3. Canola Council. (2011). On-farm strip trials—Tips. Retrieved February, 2022, from www.canolacouncil.org/canola-watch/2011/04/25/tips-for-on-farm-strip-trials
4. Deere & Company. (2012). S-series combine calibration guide. Retrieved April, 2022, from www.sloans.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/S-Series-Calibration-Guide3.pdf
5. Fulton, J. P., Sobolik, C. J., Shearer, S. A., Higgins, S. F., & Burks, T. F. (2009). Grain yield monitor flow sensor accuracy for simulated varying field slopes. Applied Engineering in Agriculture., 25(1), 15–21.