Computers and Electronics in Agriculture

26 (200) 37 – 51
www.elsevier.com/locate/compag

The interpretation of trends from multiple yield

maps
Simon Blackmore *,1
The Centre for Precision Farming, Cranfield Uni6ersity at Silsoe, Silsoe, Bedford MK45 4DT, UK

Received 10 May 1999; received in revised form 29 October 1999; accepted 4 November 1999

Abstract

Yield data over 6 years (1993–1998) were investigated for spatial and temporal trends
from a 7-ha field growing winter wheat and oil seed rape. The data were combined into two
maps, which characterised the spatial and temporal variability recorded over those years.
Techniques were developed to show the maps in either the single crop form for winter wheat,
or multiple crops that included the oil seed rape data. The two maps were then combined
into a single classified management map, which denoted three categories, each with different
characteristics that can have an impact on the way the field is managed. These categories
were; high yielding and stable, low yielding and stable, and unstable. The spatial and
temporal trends in the single crop were more stable than those in the multiple crops. In
percentage terms, with a single crop, the proportions of these three classes were 55, 45 and
0%, respectively. For the multiple crops, the proportions were 58, 39 and 3%, respectively.
The economic significance of these areas was assessed by the production of a gross margin
map and further analysis showed that the categories returned 741, 691 and 644 £/ha,
respectively. © 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Yield maps; Spatial trend maps; Temporal stability maps; Classified management maps;
Gross margin maps

* Tel.: + 44-1525-863030.
E-mail address: s.blackmore@cranfield.ac.uk (S. Blackmore)
1
s.blackmore@kvl.dk

0168-1699/00/$ - see front matter © 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 6 8 - 1 6 9 9 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 7 5 - 7
38 S. Blackmore / Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 26 (2000) 37–51

1. Introduction

Yield maps play an important part in the decision making process for farmers
adopting precision farming practices. Many farmers now have yield maps covering
a number of years and although they arouse much interest, which leads to
anecdotal explanation for the variability each year, not many farmers know how to
interpret and make use of them. A number of researchers have developed different
approaches to this analysis. Lutticken and Koch (1997), used yield data from 3
years and found consistent trends but the method used (raster correlation) was not
described. Swindell (1997) reported a technique of summing the normalised yield to
produce a harvest score, which is similar to one of the techniques presented here.
Lark and Stafford (1996) used a cluster analysis pattern recognition system to
identify areas within the field that performed to similar characteristics. This method
combined both spatial and temporal effects into a single classified map. The
techniques used in this paper were first developed by Larscheid and Blackmore
(1996).
The site for this study was a field called Far Sweetbrier on Shuttleworth Farms
in Bedfordshire, UK. The field is located at Ordnance Survey of Great Britain
(OSGB) co-ordinates E512200 N245400 or WGS84 N52° 05.592%, W00° 021.861%.
The field was 6.7 ha, fairly level with a predominantly Hanslope soil (heavy clay
topsoil, with a slowly permeable clayey subsoil horizon beginning at 30 cm). The
field was managed in a rotation of 2 years of winter wheat and 1 year of oil seed
rape. It is part of a research program to develop guidelines for the best manage-
ment practices for precision farming (Blackmore et al., 1998). Winter wheat was
grown in 1993, 1995, 1996 and 1998, and oil seed rape in 1994 and 1997. The field
has been yield mapped since 1993 and managed in a traditional uniform manner
until 1998, when part of the field was used for spatially variable trials. These trial
results were removed before using the remaining 1998 yield data in this paper.
Many yield data sets and subsequent maps exhibit systematic errors, which if not
corrected may lead the farmer into believing that the field has features that should
be managed. In reality they are artefacts produced by the harvester and the way in
which the harvester was used. These errors and their removal will not be described
here but all data used in this paper were processed by an expert filter, which
identified and removed most erroneous data according to a set of expert rules
(Blackmore and Moore, 1999).

2. Methods

Distinctive spatial and temporal trends in yield maps can often be identified by
eye. Fig. 1 shows the yield maps for Far Sweetbrier from 1993 to 1998 with a
consistently low yielding area on the northern edge of the field. This is an example
of a trend that can be represented by the spatial trend map, which shows the
consistently high and low yielding areas of the field. The stability of these features
can be represented by the temporal stability map.
 S. Blackmore / Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 26 (2000) 37–51 39

A simple method for producing the spatial trend map is to find the mean and
variance at each grid point in the field over all the years. As this field has a rotation
of crops, the spatial trend can be calculated for single or multiple crops. Both
methods are presented here.

2.1. Producing a spatial trend map

The spatial trend map for a single crop is produced by simply calculating the
mean yield at each point on a regular grid over the years of interest.
n
% yit
t=1
ȳi = (1)
n
where ȳi (t/ha) is the mean of yi (t/ha), the interpolated yield at point i over n years.
To produce the spatial trend for differing crops, the simple averaging technique
cannot be used, so the data are standardised to remove the units of yield (t/ha) and
replace them with a percentage that can be used for comparison between crops. The
result is called the relative percentage yield, as each point is compared to the field
average of 100%. It indicates at a point, how the yield differs from the mean of the
field and is calculated as follows.

Fig. 1. Yield maps (t/ha) for Far Sweetbrier field, 1993 – 1998.
40 S. Blackmore / Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 26 (2000) 37–51

si =

yi
×100 (2)
ȳ
where si is the standardised yield (%) at point i, yi is the interpolated yield (t/ha)
and ȳ is the mean of the yield for that year.
If the data are treated in this way, the point mean can then be calculated over the
years of interest, and differing crops can now be included.
n
% sit
t=1
s̄i = (3)
n
where s̄i (%) is the average of si, the standardised yield (%), at point i, over n years.

2.2. Producing a temporal stability map

To estimate how stable these features are, we need to assess the temporal stability
of yield over time. This can be achieved by calculating the coefficient of variation
at each point. The resulting map indicates how much the yield varied at a single

:  ;
point over time.
For a single crop the coefficient of variation (CV) is:
t=n t=n 2 0.5
n % y 2it − % yit
t=1 t=1

n(n −1)
CVi = × 100 (4)

:  ;
ȳi
For multiple crops, the CV can be calculated from the standardised yield.
t=n t=n 2 0.5
n % s 2it − % sit
t=1 t=1

n(n − 1)
CVsi = × 100 (5)
s̄i
where CVi is the coefficient of variation at point i and CVsi is the CV of the
standardised data at point i over n years.
Standardising the yield into the relative percentage yield is preferable to normal-
isation in this situation, as the average of the normalised yield becomes zero.

2.3. Producing a classified management map

Although these two techniques quantify the spatial and temporal variability, they
can be further combined into a single map called the ‘classified management map’,
which can be used for management purposes. The map represents areas of the field
according to their spatial and temporal characteristics, which can then be used by
the manager for future decision making. Three classes of characteristics have been
identified as useful to the manager: higher yielding and stable, lower yielding and
stable and unstable. Each class can be derived from the two previous data sets by
applying combinational logic statements shown in Table 1. A point was considered
 S. Blackmore / Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 26 (2000) 37–51 41

Table 1
Management classes and their conditions

Management class (code) Single crop Multiple crops

Condition 1 Condition 2 Condition 1 Condition 2

Higher yielding and stable (30) ȳi\Y( CViB30 s̄i\100 CVsiB30

Lower yielding and stable (20) ȳiBY( CViB30 s̄iB100 CVsiB30
Unstable (10) – CVi\30 – CVsi\30
All others (40) – – – –

to belong to a particular class if both conditions were true, where it was then
assigned an arbitrary class code shown in brackets.
Condition 1 identifies whether the point is above or below the average of all
points over all years (Y( in t/ha) which is used for the single crop. For multiple
crops, 100% is used, as it has been standardised. Condition 2 identifies the stability
of the yield at that point by comparing the CV to an arbitrary threshold. The ‘all
others’ class was included to catch any points that did not meet the previous two
conditions.

2.4. Producing a gross margin map

The gross margin of an enterprise is calculated by deducting the variable costs

from the income (Nix, 1998). This can be extended to representing the spatial gross
margin of a field by calculating it at each grid point within the field. It can be
verified conceptually by considering that the income for the field varies spatially
with the yield, whereas the variable costs of seed, sprays, fertiliser, etc. are
traditionally uniform (at present). The gross margin at each point can be calculated
by
gi =yi · CSP +OI − VC (6)
where gi (£/ha) is the gross margin at point i, yi (t/ha) is the yield, CSP (£/ha) is the
crop selling price, OI (£/ha) is other income and VC (£/ha) is the variable cost. It
can be seen that as CSP, OI and VC are all constant for the field whereas the gross
margin gi changes proportionately with the yield yi. If any treatments to the field
are varied spatially then VC will change to 6ci as the costs will vary across the field.
If area payments vary across the field such as having set-aside around the
headlands, OI will change to oii. If the crop quality attracts premium payments that
vary spatially then CSP will change to cspi

3. Results

Each data set was interpolated into a regular grid for two purposes. Firstly the
data were required to be in a grid before producing a contour map of yield and
42 S. Blackmore / Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 26 (2000) 37–51

secondly to enable calculations between years to be carried out in a spreadsheet

using the data from coincident grid points. Two false extremities of 511950E,
245050N and 512350E, 245500N were added to each data set which allowed a
common frame of reference for the interpolation process. These points were deemed
to be sufficiently far away from the main data as to prevent distortion of the
interpolated data during the interpolation process.
The interpolation was carried out between these extremities on a 10-m grid giving
46 rows and 41 columns. Kriging was the interpolation method chosen as it is a
best linear unbiased estimator (Isaaks and Srivastrava, 1989). After blanking the
grid outside the field boundary, 675 points remained. The six resulting yield maps
are presented in Fig. 1.
Two non-exclusive data sets were used to produce the trend maps. The first set
of data was compiled for a single crop of winter wheat from the yields of 1993,
1995, 1996 and 1998. The second was taken from all the years between 1993 and
1998, which included oil seed rape in 1994 and 1997.

3.1. A spatial trend map

For a single crop, the average yield at each point was calculated and a map
produced showing two classes either side of the 8.4 t/ha field average. For multiple
crops, the data were standardised and the point averages calculated and classified
into four groups: relatively high yielding (RHY), above average (AA), below
average (BA) and relatively low yielding (RLY). Both maps are presented in Fig. 2.
The five class boundaries are arbitrary but have been defined to span equally
either side of the mean. The limits were found to be 6.4 and 9.3 t/ha, giving a range
of 2.9 t/ha for the spatial trend of a single crop. The multiple crop data showed a
range of 44% from 70 to 114%. In the single crop data set, 18 points (3% or 0.2 ha)
were found to be relatively low yielding in the 6.4 t/ha class. A further 294 (43% or
2.9 ha) were below average in the 7.4 t/ha class and 363 (54% or 3.6 ha) were found
to be above average, in the 8.4 t/ha class. No points were in the relatively high
yielding class above 9.3 t/ha. In the multiple crop data set, 17 points (2.5% or 0.2
ha) were relatively low yielding, 266 (39.5% or 2.6 ha) were below average, 392
(58% or 3.9 ha) were above average and no points were relatively high yielding. The
two distributions can be seen in Fig. 3 and show that the data are both skewed
towards the higher yield. The slight difference between the numbers in the classes
reflects the fact that the class boundaries are not coincident between the data sets
and the inclusion of the extra crop. The single crop is still in t/ha, whereas the
multiple crop distribution has units of percentage.

3.2. A temporal stability map

The temporal stability maps were produced by calculating the CV at each of the
grid points. The resulting maps for both the single and multiple crops are presented
in Fig. 4.
Four arbitrary classes were chosen, at 10% intervals.
 S. Blackmore / Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 26 (2000) 37–51 43

For the single crop, limits of the CV were 3 and 27%. Of the 675 points in the
data set, 201 (30% or 2 ha) were in the most stable class, 436 (64% or 4.4 ha) were
in the next class, and 38 (6% or 0.4 ha) in the third class, with no points in the more
unstable classes. In the multiple crop data, the limits were 2 and 42%, with the most
stable class with 307 points (45% or 3.1 ha) followed by 294 points (44% or 2.9 ha),
54 points (8% or 0.5 ha), 16 points (2% or 0.2 ha) and four points (1% or 0.004 ha)
in the most unstable class. Both these distributions, seen in Fig. 5, are skewed
towards the stable end of the range.

Fig. 2. Spatial trends maps for a single (left) and multiple crops (right).
44 S. Blackmore / Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 26 (2000) 37–51

Fig. 3. Yield distributions in single (left) and multiple crops (right).

3.3. A classified management map

The classified management map is a synopsis of the important features found in

the spatial trend and temporal stability maps. It has three classes, with each
threshold being taken from the relevant source map. The three classes were: higher
yielding and stable, lower yielding and stable and unstable.
A spreadsheet was configured to identify these three classes and represent them
with a coded value, which, when exported, could be picked up by the classifier in
the GIS. The three classes, their codes and precursor conditions were presented in
Table 1 and the resulting classified management maps in Fig. 6. These maps have
been heavily smoothed to show larger, more practical treatment areas, than the
smaller more accurate but impractical areas presented in Figs. 2 and 4.
For the single crop, no points were classed as unstable, 301 (45% or 3 ha) were
classed as low yielding and stable and 374 (55% or 3.7 ha) as high yielding and
stable. The multiple crop distribution showed 20 points (3% or 0.2 ha) as unstable,
263 (39% or 2.6 ha) as low yielding and stable and 392 (58% or 3.9 ha) as high
yielding and stable. No points in either data set fell outside these classes. These
distributions are presented in Fig. 7.

3.4. A gross margin map

Although the gross margin map is the same shape as the yield map when uniform
treatments are applied, it highlights the range of income for the field. An example
is presented in Fig. 8.
 S. Blackmore / Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 26 (2000) 37–51 45

In 1993, the average gross margin was 642 £/ha but varied from a minimum of
£387 £/ha on the northern edge of the field, to a maximum of 876 £/ha in the
northern central part of the field approximately 120 m to the south. All treatments
to this field prior to 1998 were intended to be uniform.
The bars in Fig. 9 show the change in average gross margin over 6 years.
Superimposed are the whiskers denoting maximum and minimum gross margins
experienced in that year. The line denotes the average yield for that year and the

Fig. 4. Temporal stability maps for a single (left) and multiple crops (right).
46 S. Blackmore / Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 26 (2000) 37–51

Fig. 5. Stability (CV) distributions in single (left) and multiple crops (right).

Fig. 6. Classed management maps for a single (left) and multiple crops (right).

selling price is included in brackets. Note that in 1994 and 1997 the crop was oil
seed rape and the wheat prices slumped in 1998.
The classified management data were also interpreted in this way. Each of the
class boundaries remained the same but the average gross margin for each class was
determined. The results of the analysis are presented in Fig. 10.
For the single crop analysis, no area was classed as unstable. On average, the
LYS class returned 780 £/ha and the HYS class 850 £/ha The gross margin for each
class was multiplied by the area it covered, to take into account the size, and hence
 S. Blackmore / Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 26 (2000) 37–51 47

the significance of the class. The LYS returned £2370 and the HYS £3170. For the
multiple crops, the unstable class returned 640 £/ha, the LYS class 690 £/ha and the
HYS class 740 £/ha. Again, these figures were multiplied by the areas they covered,

Fig. 7. Classed management distributions in single (left) and multiple crops (right).

Fig. 8. Gross margin map for winter wheat in 1993 (with yield scale).
48 S. Blackmore / Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 26 (2000) 37–51

Fig. 9. Gross margins and the in-field variability between 1993 and 1998.

Fig. 10. Classed gross margins in single (left) and multiple crops (right).

which resulted in the unstable class returning £130, the LYS class £1820 and the
HYS class £2900.

4. Discussion

It can be seen from the spatial trend maps in Fig. 2, and the classified
management maps in Fig. 6, that the single crop of winter wheat was less spatially
varied than the multiple crops, which showed that the centre of the field yielded
 S. Blackmore / Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 26 (2000) 37–51 49

consistently higher than around the edges. Poor yields were consistent in the
south-western, south-eastern and northern corners of the field. Such areas
amounted to 0.2 ha or 2.5% of the field and, as such, may not be important in
management terms. However, the overall spatial trend indicates there may be edge
effects in this field that could bear closer inspection to identify the causal factors.
It should be noted that the pattern in the multiple crop spatial trend map (Fig. 2)
is dominated by the same pattern found in the 1994 crop of OSR (Fig. 1) but was
not repeated in other years. If this was a single temporal anomaly (which it appears
to be) then the importance of this feature is reduced. This indicates that the trend
maps are influenced more by extreme values than by subtle consistent changes,
which is of course, a characteristic of the average function. Other functions, such as
the median or mode, could be used where considered appropriate.
The temporal stability map in Fig. 4, and again in Fig. 6, showed the stable areas
that had not changed from year to year as well as the unstable areas that had been
highly changeable. The overall yield can reduce or increase without affecting the
temporal stability map but it is the change in the spatial pattern from year to year
that is represented. The single crop stability map (Fig. 4) showed no areas as being
unstable (\ 30% CV), whereas the multiple crop stability map showed 0.2 ha were
in the unstable category. This is insignificant in management terms, as it is only
2.5% of the field. It is noteworthy that these areas were identified as consistently
low yielding in the spatial trend map also, as the relative changes become more
significant with lower yield. Consequently, these areas are considered low and
unstable. Again, the multiple crop stability map was influenced by extreme values.
This can be seen in the three central stripes that have carried over from the
relatively very high yielding areas from 1994 into the temporal stability map. In this
case, these high yielding areas have not been consistent and have therefore been
identified as slightly less stable than the surrounding areas.
The smoothed classified management map can be used directly as is shows the
size and position of the spatial and temporal features. With the arbitrary 30%
threshold for the CV, it showed that relative temporal changes across the field were
not important, as the areas were very small and may not be economically viable to
treat separately. The spatial trend in both maps showed that the southern and
northern edges of the field were consistently lower yielding. The northern low
yielding area may be explained by the presence of high trees along the field
boundary. In the multiple crop map, it can also be seen that the east and west edges
were low yielding.
The purpose of creating the classified management map was to indicate homoge-
nous areas for investigation or treatment. Spatial investigation is often carried out
by sampling on a regular grid which can be expensive, whereas targeted sampling
can be used to pin point specific features for analysis. The maxima and minima or
the centre of large homogenous areas would be the first ones to be considered. If
the variability is seen to be significant, then investigation into the causal factor is
one option. Treating the area differently is another. If temporal instability is seen
as a problem, then frequent assessment of those areas may give some indication as
to the cause as the faster it changes, the more often it must be assessed. If the
50 S. Blackmore / Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 26 (2000) 37–51

spatial trend indicates that the lower yielding areas need attention then the lowest
yielding areas can be investigated and the cause ameliorated. Alternatively, if the
causal factor cannot be removed (such as the trees), reducing inputs to match the
average yield is an option. Either way, the classified management map gives the
field manager an indication whether to focus on spatial or temporal management.
The development of the gross margins can also help the decision making process,
as the variability can be quantified in terms of money. If spatial variability is to be
investigated, then the gross margin map shows the range and position of the main
features. A simple use of the gross margin map was to identify potential areas for
set-aside. If the set-aside payment was in excess of the gross margin, then it might
be economically justifiable not to grow crops there and claim set-aside payments. A
neighbouring field called Far Highlands had the headlands put into set-aside as the
gross margin was consistently lower than the set-aside payment.
The yields can be compared with each other to see the absolute trends over time
(see the line graph in Fig. 9). If the economic factors are taken into account, then
the gross margins (the bars) can be compared over time. This gives a better
representation of what happened to the field average over time than the temporal
stability map. Again, a single factor can be highly influential and in this case, it is
the crop selling price, over which the manager has little control.
The inclusion of multiple crops compared to the single crop has increased the
temporal instability, which has the lowest return (Fig. 10). Further analysis in
subsequent years will show which model more accurately represents long-term
trends.

5. Conclusion

This paper set out to define a number of methods that could be used by a farm
manager to define the spatial and temporal trends found within a field from a series
of yield maps. The significance of these trends was highlighted by converting them
to gross margins, which allowed the cost of the variability to be determined.
Although the small size of some areas does not justify separate treatment, the
difference between the gross margin per hectare is worth noting. This showed the
unstable area returned 644 £/ha, the low yielding and stable 691 £/ha and the high
yielding and stable 741 £/ha.
Methods of determining trends for single and multiple crop series were presented.
Each method has advantages and disadvantages. Subsequent work should show
which method is more robust in predicting future trends within the field.
The interpretation of the maps from Far Sweetbrier shows that the field was
relatively stable, with lower yielding areas at the northern and southern boundaries.
The cause of the consistently low yielding area in the north is likely to be the high
trees on the boundary to the east and north. The conclusions drawn from this
would be to remove the causal factor or reduce the inputs to this area. As there are
other environmental and economic considerations of keeping the trees, input
reduction or establishing a new set-aside area should be considered. The cause of
 S. Blackmore / Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 26 (2000) 37–51 51

the lower yielding trend in the south cannot be determined until further analysis is
carried out.
These methods have been used to quantify yield trends and their significance in
this field. They have helped identify spatial and temporal features that can now be
managed more efficiently.

Acknowledgements

The author gratefully acknowledges Brian Welti of Shuttleworth farms and

Massey Ferguson for the use of their data in this paper, as well as the support of
the Home Grown Cereals Authority, Hydro-Agri and Massey Ferguson for funding
part of this work.

References

Blackmore, B.S., Moore, M.R., 1999. Remedial correction of yield map data. Precision Agric. J. 1,
53–66.
Blackmore, B.S., Godwin, R.J., Taylor, J.C., Thomas, G.T., Wood, G.A., Earl, R., 1998. Understanding
variability in four fields in the UK. Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Precision
Agriculture, MN. ASA, CSSA, SSSA, pp. 3 – 18.
Isaaks, E.H., Srivastrava, R.M., 1989. Applied Geostatistics. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Lark, R.M., Stafford, J.V., 1996. Consistency and change in spatial variability of crop yield over
successive seasons: methods of data analysis. Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on
Precision Agriculture, MN. ASA, CSSA, SSSA, pp. 141 – 150.
Larscheid, G., Blackmore, B.S., 1996. Interactions between farm managers and information systems with
regard to yield mapping. Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Precision Agriculture, MN.
ASA, CSSA, SSSA, pp. 1153–1163.
Lutticken, R., Koch, W., 1997. The potential of yield maps and soil survey data in low cost site specific
farming strategies. Proceedings 1st European Conference on Precision Agriculture, Warwick, UK,
September 8–10. SCI, pp. 803–810.
Nix, J., 1998. Farm Management Pocketbook. Wye College Press.
Swindell, J.E.G., 1997. Mapping the spatial variability in the yield potential of arable land through GIS
analysis of sequential yield maps. Proceedings 1st European Conference on Precision Agriculture,
Warwick, UK, September 8–10. SCI, pp. 827 – 834.