On-farm experimentation: assessing the effect of combine ground speed on grain yield monitor data estimates

On-farm experiments (OFE) typically do not account for limitations of grain yield monitors such as the dynamics of grain flow through a large combine. A common question asked within OFE is how ground speed impacts yield estimates from grain yield monitors. Therefore, the objective of this study was...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Precision agriculture 2025-02, Vol.26 (1), p.11-11, Article 11
Hauptverfasser: Gauci, A. A., Lindsey, A., Shearer, S. A., Barker, D., Hawkins, E. M., Fulton, John P.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 11
container_issue 1
container_start_page 11
container_title Precision agriculture
container_volume 26
creator Gauci, A. A.
Lindsey, A.
Shearer, S. A.
Barker, D.
Hawkins, E. M.
Fulton, John P.
description On-farm experiments (OFE) typically do not account for limitations of grain yield monitors such as the dynamics of grain flow through a large combine. A common question asked within OFE is how ground speed impacts yield estimates from grain yield monitors. Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine if combine ground speed influences the ability of grain yield monitors to report yield differences for OFE. Six sub-plot treatment resolutions that differed in length (7.6, 15.2, 30.5, 61.0, 121.9, and 243.8 m) of imposed yield variation were harvested at combine ground speeds of 3.2 and 6.4 km h −1 . Treatments were replicated 3 times. The intentional yield variability in maize ( Zea mays L. ) was created by alternating nitrogen application (0–202 kg N ha −1 ) across the treatment lengths. A factory installed yield monitor (YM3) and a third-party platform (P1) using the controller area network (CAN) bus data were used to collect yield data and compared to plot combine data collected from adjacent rows for each treatment length along a pass. Comparisons were made between each YM and plot combine yield estimates for each low and high yield treatment lengths. Combine ground speed did not significantly impact yield estimates ( p  ≥ 0.31 for all speed interactions) except speed * method due to lack of calibration. There were no significant differences the computed yield differences (all speed interactions p  ≥ 0.40). Combine ground speed did not significantly influence the ability of yield monitoring technologies (i.e. mass flow sensor) to estimate the average low and high yields ( p  ≥ 0.31 for all speed interactions for individual plot lengths except when operating outside the calibrated flow range of the mass flow sensor. Operating outside the calibrated flow range of the mass flow sensor resulted in mass flow rate being overestimated by an average of 23% for both yield monitors (YM3 and P1).
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s11119-024-10210-4
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_3144435634</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3154239914</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c277t-f30f0a45c4b8d79fb77c7695437d31ba180821eb5f69beeca9f8a1b36c0401d03</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1LAzEURQdRsFb_gKuAGzfRfM1kxp0Uv6DQja5DJvNSUztJTVLQf29qBcGF2SSBc-97nKo6p-SKEiKvEy2nw4QJTAmjBIuDakJryTFtaHtY3rytMWN1c1ydpLQipMQEm1RvC4-tjiOCjw1EN4LPOrvgb5BOCVJyfonyKyCwFkxGwSITxt55QMsYtn5AaQMwoODLXzuPPh2sBzQG73KIaNBZI0jZjTpDOq2OrF4nOPu5p9XL_d3z7BHPFw9Ps9s5NkzKjC0nlmhRG9G3g-xsL6WRTVcLLgdOe01b0jIKfW2brgcwurOtpj1vDBGEDoRPq8t97yaG920Zr0aXDKzX2kPYJsVpLRjvOioKevEHXYVt9GW7QgkheN3wHcX2lIkhpQhWbYoqHT8VJWrnX-39q-JffftXuxDfh1KB_RLib_U_qS-CQojZ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3144435634</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>On-farm experimentation: assessing the effect of combine ground speed on grain yield monitor data estimates</title><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>Gauci, A. A. ; Lindsey, A. ; Shearer, S. A. ; Barker, D. ; Hawkins, E. M. ; Fulton, John P.</creator><creatorcontrib>Gauci, A. A. ; Lindsey, A. ; Shearer, S. A. ; Barker, D. ; Hawkins, E. M. ; Fulton, John P.</creatorcontrib><description>On-farm experiments (OFE) typically do not account for limitations of grain yield monitors such as the dynamics of grain flow through a large combine. A common question asked within OFE is how ground speed impacts yield estimates from grain yield monitors. Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine if combine ground speed influences the ability of grain yield monitors to report yield differences for OFE. Six sub-plot treatment resolutions that differed in length (7.6, 15.2, 30.5, 61.0, 121.9, and 243.8 m) of imposed yield variation were harvested at combine ground speeds of 3.2 and 6.4 km h −1 . Treatments were replicated 3 times. The intentional yield variability in maize ( Zea mays L. ) was created by alternating nitrogen application (0–202 kg N ha −1 ) across the treatment lengths. A factory installed yield monitor (YM3) and a third-party platform (P1) using the controller area network (CAN) bus data were used to collect yield data and compared to plot combine data collected from adjacent rows for each treatment length along a pass. Comparisons were made between each YM and plot combine yield estimates for each low and high yield treatment lengths. Combine ground speed did not significantly impact yield estimates ( p  ≥ 0.31 for all speed interactions) except speed * method due to lack of calibration. There were no significant differences the computed yield differences (all speed interactions p  ≥ 0.40). Combine ground speed did not significantly influence the ability of yield monitoring technologies (i.e. mass flow sensor) to estimate the average low and high yields ( p  ≥ 0.31 for all speed interactions for individual plot lengths except when operating outside the calibrated flow range of the mass flow sensor. Operating outside the calibrated flow range of the mass flow sensor resulted in mass flow rate being overestimated by an average of 23% for both yield monitors (YM3 and P1).</description><identifier>ISSN: 1385-2256</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-1618</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11119-024-10210-4</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Agriculture ; Atmospheric Sciences ; Biomedical and Life Sciences ; Calibration ; Chemistry and Earth Sciences ; Computer Science ; Controller area network ; corn ; Crop yield ; Estimates ; Flow rates ; Grain ; grain yield ; Ground speed ; Life Sciences ; mass flow ; Mass flow rate ; Monitors ; nitrogen ; Physics ; precision ; Remote Sensing/Photogrammetry ; Sensors ; Soil Science &amp; Conservation ; Statistics for Engineering ; Zea mays</subject><ispartof>Precision agriculture, 2025-02, Vol.26 (1), p.11-11, Article 11</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2024</rights><rights>Copyright Springer Nature B.V. Feb 2025</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c277t-f30f0a45c4b8d79fb77c7695437d31ba180821eb5f69beeca9f8a1b36c0401d03</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11119-024-10210-4$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11119-024-10210-4$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904,41467,42536,51297</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Gauci, A. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lindsey, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shearer, S. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barker, D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hawkins, E. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fulton, John P.</creatorcontrib><title>On-farm experimentation: assessing the effect of combine ground speed on grain yield monitor data estimates</title><title>Precision agriculture</title><addtitle>Precision Agric</addtitle><description>On-farm experiments (OFE) typically do not account for limitations of grain yield monitors such as the dynamics of grain flow through a large combine. A common question asked within OFE is how ground speed impacts yield estimates from grain yield monitors. Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine if combine ground speed influences the ability of grain yield monitors to report yield differences for OFE. Six sub-plot treatment resolutions that differed in length (7.6, 15.2, 30.5, 61.0, 121.9, and 243.8 m) of imposed yield variation were harvested at combine ground speeds of 3.2 and 6.4 km h −1 . Treatments were replicated 3 times. The intentional yield variability in maize ( Zea mays L. ) was created by alternating nitrogen application (0–202 kg N ha −1 ) across the treatment lengths. A factory installed yield monitor (YM3) and a third-party platform (P1) using the controller area network (CAN) bus data were used to collect yield data and compared to plot combine data collected from adjacent rows for each treatment length along a pass. Comparisons were made between each YM and plot combine yield estimates for each low and high yield treatment lengths. Combine ground speed did not significantly impact yield estimates ( p  ≥ 0.31 for all speed interactions) except speed * method due to lack of calibration. There were no significant differences the computed yield differences (all speed interactions p  ≥ 0.40). Combine ground speed did not significantly influence the ability of yield monitoring technologies (i.e. mass flow sensor) to estimate the average low and high yields ( p  ≥ 0.31 for all speed interactions for individual plot lengths except when operating outside the calibrated flow range of the mass flow sensor. Operating outside the calibrated flow range of the mass flow sensor resulted in mass flow rate being overestimated by an average of 23% for both yield monitors (YM3 and P1).</description><subject>Agriculture</subject><subject>Atmospheric Sciences</subject><subject>Biomedical and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Calibration</subject><subject>Chemistry and Earth Sciences</subject><subject>Computer Science</subject><subject>Controller area network</subject><subject>corn</subject><subject>Crop yield</subject><subject>Estimates</subject><subject>Flow rates</subject><subject>Grain</subject><subject>grain yield</subject><subject>Ground speed</subject><subject>Life Sciences</subject><subject>mass flow</subject><subject>Mass flow rate</subject><subject>Monitors</subject><subject>nitrogen</subject><subject>Physics</subject><subject>precision</subject><subject>Remote Sensing/Photogrammetry</subject><subject>Sensors</subject><subject>Soil Science &amp; Conservation</subject><subject>Statistics for Engineering</subject><subject>Zea mays</subject><issn>1385-2256</issn><issn>1573-1618</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2025</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE1LAzEURQdRsFb_gKuAGzfRfM1kxp0Uv6DQja5DJvNSUztJTVLQf29qBcGF2SSBc-97nKo6p-SKEiKvEy2nw4QJTAmjBIuDakJryTFtaHtY3rytMWN1c1ydpLQipMQEm1RvC4-tjiOCjw1EN4LPOrvgb5BOCVJyfonyKyCwFkxGwSITxt55QMsYtn5AaQMwoODLXzuPPh2sBzQG73KIaNBZI0jZjTpDOq2OrF4nOPu5p9XL_d3z7BHPFw9Ps9s5NkzKjC0nlmhRG9G3g-xsL6WRTVcLLgdOe01b0jIKfW2brgcwurOtpj1vDBGEDoRPq8t97yaG920Zr0aXDKzX2kPYJsVpLRjvOioKevEHXYVt9GW7QgkheN3wHcX2lIkhpQhWbYoqHT8VJWrnX-39q-JffftXuxDfh1KB_RLib_U_qS-CQojZ</recordid><startdate>20250201</startdate><enddate>20250201</enddate><creator>Gauci, A. A.</creator><creator>Lindsey, A.</creator><creator>Shearer, S. A.</creator><creator>Barker, D.</creator><creator>Hawkins, E. M.</creator><creator>Fulton, John P.</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7S9</scope><scope>L.6</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20250201</creationdate><title>On-farm experimentation: assessing the effect of combine ground speed on grain yield monitor data estimates</title><author>Gauci, A. A. ; Lindsey, A. ; Shearer, S. A. ; Barker, D. ; Hawkins, E. M. ; Fulton, John P.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c277t-f30f0a45c4b8d79fb77c7695437d31ba180821eb5f69beeca9f8a1b36c0401d03</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2025</creationdate><topic>Agriculture</topic><topic>Atmospheric Sciences</topic><topic>Biomedical and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Calibration</topic><topic>Chemistry and Earth Sciences</topic><topic>Computer Science</topic><topic>Controller area network</topic><topic>corn</topic><topic>Crop yield</topic><topic>Estimates</topic><topic>Flow rates</topic><topic>Grain</topic><topic>grain yield</topic><topic>Ground speed</topic><topic>Life Sciences</topic><topic>mass flow</topic><topic>Mass flow rate</topic><topic>Monitors</topic><topic>nitrogen</topic><topic>Physics</topic><topic>precision</topic><topic>Remote Sensing/Photogrammetry</topic><topic>Sensors</topic><topic>Soil Science &amp; Conservation</topic><topic>Statistics for Engineering</topic><topic>Zea mays</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Gauci, A. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lindsey, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shearer, S. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barker, D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hawkins, E. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fulton, John P.</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>AGRICOLA</collection><collection>AGRICOLA - Academic</collection><jtitle>Precision agriculture</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Gauci, A. A.</au><au>Lindsey, A.</au><au>Shearer, S. A.</au><au>Barker, D.</au><au>Hawkins, E. M.</au><au>Fulton, John P.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>On-farm experimentation: assessing the effect of combine ground speed on grain yield monitor data estimates</atitle><jtitle>Precision agriculture</jtitle><stitle>Precision Agric</stitle><date>2025-02-01</date><risdate>2025</risdate><volume>26</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>11</spage><epage>11</epage><pages>11-11</pages><artnum>11</artnum><issn>1385-2256</issn><eissn>1573-1618</eissn><abstract>On-farm experiments (OFE) typically do not account for limitations of grain yield monitors such as the dynamics of grain flow through a large combine. A common question asked within OFE is how ground speed impacts yield estimates from grain yield monitors. Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine if combine ground speed influences the ability of grain yield monitors to report yield differences for OFE. Six sub-plot treatment resolutions that differed in length (7.6, 15.2, 30.5, 61.0, 121.9, and 243.8 m) of imposed yield variation were harvested at combine ground speeds of 3.2 and 6.4 km h −1 . Treatments were replicated 3 times. The intentional yield variability in maize ( Zea mays L. ) was created by alternating nitrogen application (0–202 kg N ha −1 ) across the treatment lengths. A factory installed yield monitor (YM3) and a third-party platform (P1) using the controller area network (CAN) bus data were used to collect yield data and compared to plot combine data collected from adjacent rows for each treatment length along a pass. Comparisons were made between each YM and plot combine yield estimates for each low and high yield treatment lengths. Combine ground speed did not significantly impact yield estimates ( p  ≥ 0.31 for all speed interactions) except speed * method due to lack of calibration. There were no significant differences the computed yield differences (all speed interactions p  ≥ 0.40). Combine ground speed did not significantly influence the ability of yield monitoring technologies (i.e. mass flow sensor) to estimate the average low and high yields ( p  ≥ 0.31 for all speed interactions for individual plot lengths except when operating outside the calibrated flow range of the mass flow sensor. Operating outside the calibrated flow range of the mass flow sensor resulted in mass flow rate being overestimated by an average of 23% for both yield monitors (YM3 and P1).</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><doi>10.1007/s11119-024-10210-4</doi><tpages>1</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1385-2256
ispartof Precision agriculture, 2025-02, Vol.26 (1), p.11-11, Article 11
issn 1385-2256
1573-1618
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_3144435634
source Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals
subjects Agriculture
Atmospheric Sciences
Biomedical and Life Sciences
Calibration
Chemistry and Earth Sciences
Computer Science
Controller area network
corn
Crop yield
Estimates
Flow rates
Grain
grain yield
Ground speed
Life Sciences
mass flow
Mass flow rate
Monitors
nitrogen
Physics
precision
Remote Sensing/Photogrammetry
Sensors
Soil Science & Conservation
Statistics for Engineering
Zea mays
title On-farm experimentation: assessing the effect of combine ground speed on grain yield monitor data estimates
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-23T16%3A54%3A00IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=On-farm%20experimentation:%20assessing%20the%20effect%20of%20combine%20ground%20speed%20on%20grain%20yield%20monitor%20data%20estimates&rft.jtitle=Precision%20agriculture&rft.au=Gauci,%20A.%20A.&rft.date=2025-02-01&rft.volume=26&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=11&rft.epage=11&rft.pages=11-11&rft.artnum=11&rft.issn=1385-2256&rft.eissn=1573-1618&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11119-024-10210-4&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3154239914%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3144435634&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true