IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i5p4516-d1086323.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Headland and Field Edge Performance Assessment Using Yield Maps and Sentinel-2 Images

Author

Listed:
  • Kaihua Liu

    (Department of Land, Environment Agriculture and Forestry, University of Padova, 35020 Legnaro, Italy)

  • Ahmed Kayad

    (Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521, USA)

  • Marco Sozzi

    (Department of Land, Environment Agriculture and Forestry, University of Padova, 35020 Legnaro, Italy)

  • Luigi Sartori

    (Department of Land, Environment Agriculture and Forestry, University of Padova, 35020 Legnaro, Italy)

  • Francesco Marinello

    (Department of Land, Environment Agriculture and Forestry, University of Padova, 35020 Legnaro, Italy)

Abstract

Headland and field edges have a higher traffic frequency compared to the field centre, which causes more compaction. Most repeated compaction is located at the field entrance area and headland during machinery turning and material transporting that takes place during the fertilisation, herbicide laying, and harvesting of fields, which could cause soil structure destruction and yield reduction. In this study, the differences between headland, field edges, and field centre were studied using yield maps and the vegetation indices (VIs) calculated by the Google Earth Engine (GEE). First, thirteen yield maps from 2019 to 2022 were used to measure the yield difference between headland, field edges, and field centre. Then, one hundred and eleven fields from northern Italy were used to compare the vegetation indices (VIs) differences between headland, field edges, and field centre area. Then, field size, sand, and clay content were calculated and estimated from GEE. The yield map showed that headland and field edges were 12.20% and 2.49% lower than the field centre. The results of the comparison of the VIs showed that headlands and field edges had lower values compared to the field centre, with reductions of 4.27% and 2.70% in the normalised difference vegetation index (NDVI), 4.17% and 2.67% in the green normalized difference vegetation index (GNDVI), and 5.87% and 3.59% in the normalised difference red edge (NDRE). Additionally, the results indicated that the yield losses in the headland and field edges increased as the clay content increased and sand content decreased. These findings suggest that soil compaction and structural damage caused by the higher traffic frequency in the headland and field edges negatively affect crop yield.

Suggested Citation

  • Kaihua Liu & Ahmed Kayad & Marco Sozzi & Luigi Sartori & Francesco Marinello, 2023. "Headland and Field Edge Performance Assessment Using Yield Maps and Sentinel-2 Images," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-17, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:5:p:4516-:d:1086323
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/5/4516/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/5/4516/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kaihua Liu & Marco Benetti & Marco Sozzi & Franco Gasparini & Luigi Sartori, 2022. "Soil Compaction under Different Traction Resistance Conditions—A Case Study in North Italy," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-23, November.
    2. L. Robin Keller, 2010. "From the Editor..," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 7(3), pages 235-237, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. L. Robin Keller & Kelly M. Kophazi, 2012. "From the Editors ---Copulas, Group Preferences, Multilevel Defenders, Sharing Rewards, and Communicating Analytics," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 9(3), pages 213-218, September.
    2. L. Robin Keller & Kelly M. Kophazi, 2011. "From the Editors---Deterrence, Multiattribute Utility, and Probability and Bayes' Updating," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 8(2), pages 83-87, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:5:p:4516-:d:1086323. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.