Stochastic simulation of maize productivity: spatial and temporal uncertainty

Grifo1, A. R. L.; Marques da Silva2, J.

1
Escola Superior Agrária de Santarém, Departamento de Ciências Agrárias, Santarém,
Portugal anabela.grifo@esa.ipsantarem.pt
2
Universidade de Évora, Instituto de Ciências Agrárias e Ambientais
Mediterrâneas-ICAAM, Évora, Portugal, jmsilva@uevora.pt

Abstract
There is an emerging interest in evaluating the uncertainty of agricultural production to
enable the production process and decision making guidance.
The main objective of this work was to estimate the spatial and temporal maize yield
uncertainty using stochastic simulation techniques, including Sequential Gaussian
Simulation. The results showed: i) that it is possible to estimate the spatial and temporal
dynamics of production based on one year’s data; ii) that the productivity variation in
stochastic simulation has a higher amplitude in relation to real production data; iii) that
the simulations allow approximate estimation of the productivity multiyear behavior.

Keywords: stochastic simulation, maize, spatial and temporal variation

Introduction

Currently the availability of sophisticated technologies that can be applied to agriculture

has provided greater guidance in the development of the productive process and greater
impact in the decision making. The use of geostatistical tools made it possible to
characterize the spatial and temporal distribution of physico-chemical properties of soils
(Cambardella and Karlen, 1999; Moral et al., 2010; Amirinejad et al.; 2011; Nourzadeh
et al., 2012) and productivity (Kravchenko and Bullock, 2002; Schepers et al., 2004)
and better understand the complex relationships that occur between soil properties and
environmental factors and intensify sustainability of production process (Goovaerts,
1998a; Ayoubi et al., 2007; Virgilio et al., 2007; Diacono et al., 2012).
Geostatistical techniques such as kriging made it possible to estimate attributes in
unsampled locations based on the spatial continuity of data (Goovaerts, 1999; Soares,
2006). These estimation techniques soften the details of local spatial variability as
shown by Goovaerts (1998a) with pH data in pasture. This kriging smoothing results
algorithm leads to an over-estimation of small values and an underestimation of large
values (Goovaerts, 1998a; Goovaerts, 1999). However, this technique allows us map
and discriminate of areas where the studied variable has big and small values (Soares,
2006).
The inability of the estimation procedures to produce extreme attributes has made
relevant the application of stochastic simulation procedures to the study of soils and
plants. In stochastic simulation the aim is not to minimize the error variance but try to
reproduce the variability of the attributes being studied in a probabilistic way, that is, it
is intended to generate a set of values that reproduce the histogram and variogram
model of sample data (Goovaerts, 1998a; 1999; 2000).
An intermediate approach, simulated annealing, has been discussed by Goovaerts
(1988b; 1999; 2000). This approach enabled the author (Goovaerts, 1998a) to create
maps of soil contamination by zinc, with a balance between the estimation and
simulation, depending on the desired weight constraint (histogram and variogram
reproduction or minimum error variance at each location).
Estimating uncertainty in agriculture is somehow important especially if one tries to
achieve optimization. The main objective of this work was to study the stochastic
modeling, sequential Gaussian simulation techniques and see if they can be useful in
forecasting and modeling maize productivity in the Portuguese soil and climate
conditions, assuming that there is only one year of yield data.

Materials and methods

Details of field experimental site and collection of yield data

This study was conducted using data collected from a single agricultural field
(Azarento) in Fronteira (Lat: +39.09307; Long: -7.611332), in the Alentejo region of
southern Portugal. The considered yield years were 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2007 and
irrigated maize was sown in late April/early May and harvested in September/October.
Due to the fact that this is a crop grown under irrigation year to year yield variation
should not occur on the basis of water availability. The farmer used a reduced tillage
system, involving a small subsoiler (300mm depth) prior to sowing.
A CLAAS LEXION 450 combine harvester was used, equipped with a combine
electronic board information system (CEBIS), providing instantaneous yield and grain
moisture data, with less than 5% error. The combine harvester was equipped with: a
4.5m cutting header; a differential GPS Pilot; a grain mass flow sensor (through the
impact force of grain hitting a plate) and a grain moisture sensor (by sensing the
dielectric properties of the harvested grain), both near the top of the clean grain elevator.
All these sensors were produced by CLAAS, Harsewinkel, Germany. In order to
eliminate identifiable errors, yield data was processed using the methodology described
by Blackmore and Moore (1999) and the weight of collected grain was adjusted for
grain moisture (140 g kg-1) because it is the regulating commercial humidity and
moisture content which allows storage of grain without altering their qualities.
Variables corresponding to yearly maize yield data were standardized.

Data analysis
Exploratory data analysis of maize productivity was performed to detect the presence of
outliers, trends and test data normality. Maize productivity structural analysis was
performed with standardized data on SpaceStatTM software (BioMedware, 2012). The
experimental omnidirectional variograms were fitted to standard models in order to
capture the main characteristics of maize productivity (Goovaerts, 1998a; 1999) by
minimizing the weighted sum of squares (WSS) of the differences between
experimental models and theoretical models of variograms and through information and
physical knowledge of the study area and of the phenomenon (Goovaerts, 1998a). In
this study, all variogram models were fitted by two spherical models.
Interpolation in 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2007 was performed by ordinary kriging which
estimates values as a linear combination of closer observations to securing two criteria:
non-bias and minimization of the estimation variance (Goovaerts, 1998a; 1999). The
analysis of the productivity spatial variability was performed in a square mesh (6mx6m)
through geostatistical analyst extension of ArcGISTM software (ESRI, 2009).
The sequential Gaussian simulation is a process which assumes that the marginal
distribution function of the variable to simulate has a Gaussian distribution. Therefore,
the respective data transformation was performed before the application of sequential
Gaussian simulation to the 2002 maize productivity data, with SGeMS software
(Stanford Geostatistical Modeling Software). The transformation was accomplished
within limits equal to the minimum and maximum sampling value and 10 equi-probable
scenarios of maize production were generated, based on the 2002 year data. The
production surfaces generated each year and in each simulation were classified into six
production classes [1 (<-1.5); 2 (-1.5 to -1); 3 (-1 to 0); 4 (0 to 1); 5 (1 to 1.5); 6 (>1.5)]

Results and Discussion

The spatial behavior of maize production in 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2007 was assessed
through their variograms whose parameters are shown in Table 1. The spatial variability
of maize yield expressed a moderate spatial dependence according to Cambardella et al.
(1994). All variograms showed a similar shape with a nugget effect and sill in the same
order of magnitude. The year 2007 was noted for the greater range of spatial
dependence.

Table 1. Parameters of the variogram data for maize yield for 2002, 2003, 2004 and
2007.
Lag Nugget Range
Variable Nr Lags Model Sill
(m) Effect (m)
0.416 69.02
Y02 6 40 Spherical 0.372
0.230 210.66
0.327 55.477
Y03 6 40 Spherical 0.340
0.309 240.68
0.367 57.81
Y04 6 40 Spherical 0.306
0.283 179.32
0.287 49.59
Y07 6 40 Spherical 0.365
0.411 313.07
Y02=Yield 2002; Y03=Yield 2003; Y04=Yield 2004; Y07=Yield 2007.

The yield maps showed that there exists spatial and temporal productivity differences,
which is understandable due to the fact that agricultural production integrates a lot of
different production factors (Blackmore et al., 2003; Marques da Silva, 2006; Marques
da Silva and Silva, 2006).
Ten simulated yield surfaces based on 2002 yield data and 4 non simulated yield
surfaces (2002, 2003, 2004 and 2007), were classified in 6 productivity classes (Figure
1). It was found that about 55% of each simulated yield surface area is classified into
the same 2002 productivity class and about 99.5% of the simulated area was classified
in the same class, a class above or below when compared with the 2002 productivity
classes (Table 2). Differences in ratings higher than 2 classes, in absolute terms, were
observed in about 0.5% of the estimated area (Table 2). This indicates that
approximately 0.33 ha of the area of Azarento pivot was overvalued (negative
difference) or undervalued (positive difference) through simulation. This occurred
mainly in classes of extreme production (Figure 1), being more evident in the increased
production class (class 6). Figure 2 has helped to understand that stochastic simulation
has a tendency to estimate higher positive and negative attributes that the ones measured
in the field.
Table 2. Comparison between 2002 maize yield surface classes and three different
simulated maize yield surface classes.

Classes
Y02-Sim1 Y02-Sim6 Y02-Sim10
difference
-3 25 0.16% 29 0.19% 24 0.15%
-2 547 3.49% 538 3.44% 534 3.41%
-1 3172 20.26% 3160 20.18% 3158 20.17%
0 8676 55.40% 8641 55.18% 8649 55.23%
1 2675 17.08% 2717 17.35% 2706 17.28%
2 516 3.30% 521 3.33% 534 3.41%
3 49 0.31% 54 0.34% 55 0.35%
Total 15660 100% 15660 100% 15660 100%
Y02=Yield 2002; Sim1=Simulation 1; Sim6= Simulation 6; Sim10= Simulation 10.

Figure 1. Maize standardized yield maps over the study area: (a) Ordinary Kriging
estimates (Yield 2002); (b) Simulated values (simulation 6).
 Standard Maize yield in 2002, 200 3 and simulation 1
3,0
2,5
2,0
1,5
1,0
0,5
0,0
-0,5
-1,0
-1,5
-2,0
-2,5
-3,0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Prodution classes
1 (<-1.5); 2 (-1.5 to -1); 3 (-1 to 0); 4 (0 to 1); 5 (1 to 1.5); 6
(>1.5))
Figure 2. Comparison between maize yield classes in 2002 and yield classes in 2003,
2004, 2007 and simulation 1.

In the years 2003, 2004 and 2007 (Table 3), respectively 56.31%, 60.32% and 49.81%
of the production area of maize of Azarento pivot was classified in the same classes of
production 2002 which shows, on the one hand, the spatial variability of production
over the 4 years of study and, on the other hand, areas that have remained in the same
production class over the 4 years of study (Table 3).

Table 3. Comparison between maize yield classes for 2002 and yield classes for 2003,
2004 and 2007.

Classes Y02-Y03 Y02-Y04 Y02-Y07

difference
Pixels difference number
-4 0 0 0 0 4 0.03%
-3 50 0.32% 27 0.17% 135 0.86%
-2 407 2.60% 307 1.96% 681 4.35%
-1 2921 18.65% 2541 16.23% 2917 18.63%
0 8818 56.31% 9446 60.32% 7800 49.81%
1 3113 19.88% 2953 18.86% 3676 23.47%
2 327 2.09% 367 2.34% 370 2.36%
3 24 0.15% 19 0.12% 61 0.39%
4 0 0 0 0 16 0.10%
Total 15660 100% 15660 100% 15660 100%
Y02=Yield 2002; Y03=Yield 2003; Y07=Yield 2007
Between year yield class coincidence (Table 4), when considering the intermediate yield
classes (classes 2, 3, 4 and 5), is rather similar when comparing real yield class values
(Y02-Y03; Y2-Y04; Y02-Y07) and simulated yield class values (Y02-S1; Y2-S6; Y02-
S10). Between year yield class coincidence when considering the extreme yield classes
(classes 1 and 6) is rather different when comparing real yield class values (~0-30%)
and simulated yield class values (~70-80%). In conclusion, one can say that yield
simulation reproduce rather well the intermediate between year yield class coincidence
where we can find 80% of of field yield.

Table 4. Between year yield class coincidence by yield classes.

Yield 2002 Y02-Y03 Y02-Y04 Y02-Y07 Y02-S1 Y02-S6 Y02-S10
Class 1 (<1.5) 30.86% 37.95% 12.87% 79.87% 78.05% 80.03%
Class 2 (-1.5 to -1) 37.00% 28.44% 21.99% 30.55% 30.55% 30.34%
Class 3 (-1 to 0) 61.63% 59.18% 58.22% 55.35% 55.31% 55.24%
Class 4 (0 to 1) 62.25% 73.94% 54.09% 59.34% 58.96% 58.99%
Class 5 (1 to 1.5) 33.33% 34.51% 30.29% 42.39% 42.46% 42.32%
Class 6 (>1.5) 2.53% 1.27% 37.97% 69.62% 73.42% 75.95%
Y02=Yield 2002; Y03=Yield 2003; Y07=Yield 2007; S1=Simulation 1; S6= Simulation
6; S10= Simulation 10

The observation of the same production classes in the same geographical area, in most
scenarios make it possible to consider in these zones greater production stability and
therefore a lower risk. However, the question remains: how many surfaces are needed to
characterize a given process?
Agricultural production involves a large number of variables although, as in other
phenomena, a small number of variables explain much of the variation seen. However,
in this study, the variables that influence the production process were not analyzed, that
is, the election of maize production in 2002 as the basis of simulation and comparison
with other production years was only because it was the first year with available data.

Conclusions

The innovative application of geostatistical simulation models for agricultural

production may increase prior knowledge of the behavior of the agricultural parcel in
the absence of multi-year data, thereby increasing the possibility of reducing economic,
environmental and production risks.
The number of equi-probable surfaces generated by sequential Gaussian simulation
helped to reproduce main yield classes uncertainty when compared to real year data. It
was found that yield variation in stochastic simulations has a higher amplitude in
extreme yield classes, estimating yield by excess in the more productive yield classes
and yield by defect in the lower productivity yield classes.
Future research should analyze how stochastic yield surfaces simulation could help
decision makers in improving economic and environmental return given the complexity
of the agricultural production system.

Acknowledgements

The authors are very grateful to Eng. Castro Duarte for all his material and immaterial
support.
References

Amirinejad, A.A.; Kamble, K.; Aggarwal, P.; Chakraborty, D.; Pradhan, S. and Mittal,
R. B. 2011. Assessment and mapping of spatial variation of soil physical health in
a farm. Geoderma, 160 292–303.
Ayoubi, S.; Zamani, S. M. and Khormali, F. 2007. Spatial variability of some soil
properties for site specific farming in northern Iran. International Journal of Plant
Production, 1(2), 225-235.
BioMedware 2012. SpaceStat 3.6.5. Geospatial Research and Software. Ann Arbor, MI,
Washington, USA.
Blackmore, B. S. and Moore, M. R. 1999. Remedial correction of yield map data.
Precision Agriculture Journal, 1 53–66.
Blackmore, S.; Godwin, R. J.e Fountas, S. 2003. The Analysis of Spatial and Temporal
Trends in Yield Map Data over Six Years. Biosystems Engineering, 84 (4) 455–
466.
Cambardella, C.A.; Moorman, T.B.; Novak, J.M.; Parkin, T.B.; Karlen, D.L.; Turco,
R.F. and Konopka, A.E. 1994. Field scale variability of soil properties in central
Iowa soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 58 1501-1511
Cambardella, C. A. and Karlen, D. L. 1999. Spatial Analysis of Soil Fertility
Parameters. Precision Agriculture, 1 5-14.
Diacono, M.; Castrignanò, A.; Troccoli, A.; De Benedetto, D.; Basso, B. and Rubino,
P. 2012. Spatial and temporal variability of wheat grain yield and quality in a
Mediterranean environment: A multivariate geostatistical approach. Field Crops
Research, 131 49–62.
ESRI 2009. ARCGIS 9.3.3. Redlands, CA, USA: Environmental Systems Research
Institute.
Goovaerts, P. 1998a. Geostatistical tools for characterizing the spatial variability of
microbiological and physico-chemical soil properties. Biology and Fertility of
Soils, 27 315–334.
Goovaerts, P. 1998b. Accounting for estimation optimality criteria in simulated
annealing. Mathematical Geology, 30(5) 511-534.
Goovaerts, P. 1999. Geostatistics in soil science: state-of-the-art and perspectives.
Geoderma, 89 1-45.
Goovaerts, P. 2000. Estimation or simulation of soil properties? Na optimization
problem with conflicting criteria. Geoderma, 97 165-186.
Kravchenko, A. N. and Bullock, D. G. 2002. Spatial Variability of Soybean Quality
Data as a Function of Field Topography: I. Spatial Data Analysis. Crop Science,
42 804–815.
Marques da Silva, J.R. 2006. Analysis of the Spatial and Temporal Variability of
Irrigated Maize Yield. Biosystems Engineering, 94 (3) 337–349.
Marques da Silva, J.R. and Silva, L.L. 2006. Relationship between Distance to Flow
Accumulation Lines and Spatial Variability of Irrigated Maize Grain Yield and
Moisture Content at Harvest. Biosystems Engineering, 94 525-533.
Moral, F.J.; Terrón, J.M. and Marques da Silva, J.R. 2010. Delineation of management
zones using mobile measurements of soil apparent electrical conductivity and
multivariate geostatistical techniques. Soil & Tillage Research, 106 335–343.
Nourzadeh, M.; Mahdian, M. H.; Malakouti, M. J. and Khavazi, K. 2012. Investigation
and prediction spatial variability in chemical properties of agricultural soil using
geostatistics. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, 58 (5) 461–475.
Schepers, A. R.; Shanahan, J. F.; Liebig, M. A.; Schepers, J. S.; Johnson,S. H. and Jr.,
A. L. 2004. Appropriateness of Management Zones for Characterizing Spatial
Variability of Soil Properties and Irrigated Corn Yields across Years. Agronomy
Journal, 96 195–203.
Soares, A. 2006. Geoestatística para as Ciências da Terra e do Ambiente (Geostatistics
for Earth Sciences and Environment). Colecção Ensino da Ciência e da
Tecnologia. Lisboa, IST Press, 2ªed, 214pp.
Virgilio, N. D.; Monti, A. and 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.