How accurate are yield estimates from crop cuts? Evidence from smallholder maize farms in Ethiopia
| Autor: | Hailemariam Ayalew, Jordan Chamberlin, Kibrom A. Abay, Frédéric Kosmowski, Tesfaye Shiferaw Sida, Peter Craufurd |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2021 |
| Předmět: |
Protocol (science)
Economics and Econometrics Crop yields Sociology and Political Science Yield (finance) Crop yield Sampling (statistics) Systematic sampling Octant (solid geometry) Sample (statistics) Management Monitoring Policy and Law Development Article Plot (graphics) Measurement errors Sampling methods Statistics Agricultural systems Crop production Farm survey data Food Science Mathematics |
| Zdroj: | Food Policy |
| ISSN: | 0306-9192 |
| DOI: | 10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102122 |
| Popis: | Highlights • Accurate measures of yield are essential for evaluating agricultural productivity. • Substantial heterogeneity in yield estimation protocols has received little critical attention. • Alternative protocols differ widely in yield estimation accuracy. • Crop cut from a single, randomly selected octant outperforms other protocols in our study. • All yield estimation methods in our study suffer from non-classical measurement error. Agricultural statistics and applied analyses have benefitted from moving from farmer estimates of yield to crop cut based estimates, now regarded as a gold standard. However, in practice, crop cuts and other sample-based protocols vary widely in the details of their implementations and little empirical work has documented how alternative yield estimation methods perform. Here, we undertake a well-measured experiment of multiple yield estimation methods on 237 smallholder maize plots in Amhara region, Ethiopia. We compare yield from a full plot harvest with farmer assessments and with estimates from a variety of field sampling protocols: W-walk, transect, random quadrant, random octant, center quadrant, and 3 diagonal quadrants. We find that protocol choices are important: alternative protocols vary considerably in their accuracy relative to the whole plot, with absolute mean errors ranging from 23 (farmer estimates) to 10.6 (random octant). Furthermore, while most methods approximate the sample mean reasonably well, the divergence of individual measures from true plot-level values can be considerable. We find that randomly positioned quadrants outperform systematic sampling schemes: the random octant had the best accuracy and was the most cost-effective. The nature of bias is non-classical: bias is correlated with plot size as well as with plot management characteristics. In summary, our results advocate that even “gold standard” crop cut measures should be interpreted cautiously, and more empirical work should be carried out to validate and extend our conclusions. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Full Text from ScienceDirect