Soil & Tillage Research 191 (2019) 1–10

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil & Tillage Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/still

Delineation of management zones in a peach orchard using multivariate and T

geostatistical analyses
⁎
Henrique Oldonia, Viviane Santos Silva Terrab, Luís Carlos Timmc, , Carlos Reisser Júniord,
Alex Becker Monteiroe
a
Department of Rural Engineering, College of Agricultural Sciences, São Paulo State University, Rua José Barbosa de Barros, n. 1780, Portaria II, CEP: 18610-307,
Botucatu, São Paulo, Brazil
b
Center of Technological Development, Water Resources Engineering, Federal University of Pelotas, Campus Porto, Rua Gomes Carneiro, n. 01, CEP: 96010-610, Pelotas,
Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
c
Department of Rural Engineering, Faculty of Agronomy, Federal University of Pelotas, Campus Universitário s/n, CEP: 96010-900, Capão do Leão, Rio Grande do Sul,
Brazil
d
Embrapa – Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation, BR392, Km 78, CEP: 96001-970, Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
e
Faculty of Agronomy, Federal University of Pelotas, Campus Universitário s/n, CEP: 96010-900, Capão do Leão, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The soil nutritional management in peach orchards in Southern Brazil is still based on conventional and uniform
Prunus persica recommendations, without taking into consideration the spatial variability of the physical environment. This
Soil and tree attributes might result in over-application of fertilizers in areas with high nutrient levels and under-application in areas
Spatial variability with low nutrient levels, which will cause high heterogeneity in the peach production and fruit quality resulting
in a low profit of farmers. The objectives of this work were to characterize the spatial variability of soil and tree
attributes, in a peach orchard using classical statistics and geostatistical tools as well as to delineate potential
management zones based on the soil and tree attributes using the principal component and fuzzy c-means
clustering analyses. A 1.8 ha peach orchard, in Morro Redondo, State of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, was selected
as the study area and a grid of 101 trees was established. Close to each of these trees, soil samples were collected
in the 0−0.10 m and 0.10−0.20 m layers to determine sand, silt and clay fractions, soil bulk density, volumetric
water content, pH in water, organic matter, available phosphorus as well as exchangeable potassium, magne-
sium and calcium contents. During the years of 2010, 2011 and 2012, peach yield, number of fruits per tree,
average fruit weight per individual tree, flesh firmness and total soluble solids content per tree were determined.
All data sets were submitted to descriptive statistics and the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test as well as to geostatistical
analysis. Principal component and fuzzy c-means clustering analyses were used to delineate the management
zones based on the optimal number of clusters identified employing the fuzziness performance index and the
modified participation entropy. Results showed high spatial variability of yield and quality of peaches. It was
found that the optimal number of management zones for the peach orchard was two and most of the soil and tree
attributes presented statistical differences in each defined management zone. The defined management zones
based on soil and tree attributes open the opportunity to farmers for site-specific management in the peach
orchard, aiming at precision agriculture and directing soil sampling design as well.

1. Introduction
Peach crop [Prunus persica (L.) Batsch], originated in China and in
temperate climate, is nowadays spread all over the world and is re-
cognized for producing juicy fruit, of pleasant taste and high nutritional
value. Peach and nectarine represent the fourth most important crops
among the stone fruits, with a global production of 22,795,855 tons in
2014, in a cultivated area of 1,494,836 ha (FAOstat, 2017), evidencing
their worldwide socio-economic importance. China had the greatest
production in 2014, followed by Spain and Italy. Brazil was the thir-
teenth country in this ranking (FAOstat, 2017).
Fruit production has become one of the agricultural activities with

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: henriqueoldoni@gmail.com (H. Oldoni), vssterra10@gmail.com (V.S. Silva Terra), lctimm@ufpel.edu.br, lcartimm@yahoo.com.br (L.C. Timm),
carlos.reisser@embrapa.br (C.R. Júnior), alexbeckermonteiro@gmail.com (A.B. Monteiro).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2019.03.008
Received 15 May 2017; Received in revised form 30 January 2019; Accepted 14 March 2019
Available online 27 March 2019
0167-1987/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
H. Oldoni, et al.
great importance in the Brazilian economy over the last years due to its
profitability in small areas, playing a relevant role in the generation of
income and employment in rural areas, mainly regarding family-based
agricultural production systems. The production of temperate climate
fruit crops outstands in the Brazilian socio-economic scenario, mainly
in the States of Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina, São Paulo and Minas
Gerais, either for in natura commercialization or for the industrial
market (Fachinello et al., 2011). This agricultural activity is very im-
portant in Southern Brazil, since it increases the profitability and the
generation of income for family-based agricultural production systems
(economic scenario). It also allows the generation of employment in
farms and families to stay in rural areas (social scenario).
The State of Rio Grande do Sul (RS) is the main peach producer in
Brazil, with a harvested area of 12,574 ha and a total production of
about 129 thousand tons in 2015 (IBGE, 2016). The main industrial
park of peach cannery is located in Pelotas, southern Rio Grande do Sul
State, which is responsible for producing over 60 thousand tons of this
fruit. This manifests a relevant activity for the socio-economic devel-
opment of this region, since most of the production systems are based
on small family systems, and this activity opens an opportunity to
generate income and allows families to stay in rural areas.
The soil nutritional management in peach orchards in the region of
Pelotas is still based on conventional and uniform recommendations to
the whole orchard area, not taking into consideration the variability of
the physical and chemical or nutritional environment where the trees
develop. This might result in over-application in areas with high nu-
trient levels and under-application in areas with low nutrient levels,
resulting in higher heterogeneity in the peach production and fruit
quality and lower profitability to farmers. In addition, soils are highly
variable due to the combined effect of physical, chemical and biological
processes that operate at different intensities and scales (Goovaerts,
1998). Therefore, the use of multivariate statistical analysis (e.g.,
principal component analysis and clustering analysis) has the potential
to define the soil homogeneous management zones based on crop and
soil spatial variability patterns in the field, and becomes promising for
the rational management of nutrients and water in peach orchards.
Davatgar et al. (2012) defined homogeneous management zones of
physical and chemical properties, through geostatistical, principal
component and fuzzy clustering analyses, aiming at providing in-
formation for a variable application rate of nutrients in the soil. These
authors concluded that clustering analysis reduced the variability of soil
properties within each delimited zone providing the farmers the op-
portunity of adopting a site-specific management of the nutrients of the
soil. Valente et al. (2012), evaluating soil physical and chemical prop-
erties, used geostatistical analysis combined with fuzzy c-means clus-
tering analysis to define management zones within coffee (Coffea ara-
bica L.) fields. The authors concluded that more than one soil variable
should be used to define management zones. In an apple orchard in
Greece, Aggelopooulou et al. (2013) used a combination of multivariate
geostatistics with a non-parametric clustering approach to delineate
management zones through soil and tree attributes. From that study,
Aggelopooulou et al. (2013) divided an apple orchard into four zones,
conditioning the differentiated management of soil fertility, irrigation
and cultural practices.
In five commercial fields of wheat production (Triticum aestivum L.)
in Argentina, Peralta et al. (2015) concluded that the delineation of
management zones increased the efficiency of the use of nitrogen based
fertilizers in three of all five evaluated fields, allowing the application
of nitrogen fertilizers at variable rates. Also, in a study carried out in the
south of India, Vasu et al. (2017) identified critical zones of nutrient
deficiency (soil pH, organic carbon, soil available nitrogen, phos-
phorous, potassium and sulphur) from the elaboration of spatial dis-
tribution maps using geostatistical tools (semivariogram and ordinary
kriging) and delivered nutrient management recommendations based
on soil test results to farmers for adopting need based variable rate of
fertilizer application. These authors also pointed out that the generated
2
Soil & Tillage Research 191 (2019) 1–10
maps can serve as an effective tool for farm managers and policy ma-
kers in site-specific nutrient management.
Studies on the use of spatial distribution maps of soil and perennial
crop attributes for the delineation of management zones are still scarce,
mainly for site-specific management of peach orchards aiming at pre-
cision agriculture. In this sense, the objectives of this work were: i) to
assess the spatial variability of soil and tree attributes using geostatis-
tical tools in a peach orchard located in the region of Pelotas – RS,
Brazil, and ii) to delineate specific management zones based on soil and
tree attributes, through principal component and fuzzy c-means clus-
tering analyses.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Study area and soil and tree attributes
The study was carried out in a 1.8 ha peach orchard, Esmeralda
cultivar, located in the municipality of Morro Redondo, in the south of
Rio Grande do Sul state, Brazil (31° 31′ 55.30″ S and 52° 35′ 37.87″ W).
The climate in the region, according to the Köppen’s classification is of
the “Cfa” type, i.e., humid temperate with hot summers. The region has
an annual mean temperature of 18 °C and an annual mean precipitation
of 1,509 mm. The annual mean air relative humidity is 78.8%. The soil
in the experimental area was classified as an Aquertic Hapludalf (Soil
Survey Staff, 2010).
An experimental grid was established in the peach orchard which
was constituted of 18 rows of trees (1.5 m far from each other and 6.0 m
between rows), totaling 1,450 trees. 101 trees were selected randomly,
each one being georeferenced using a navigation GPS, model GPSmap
76CSx (Fig. 1).
In July 2010, disturbed and undisturbed soil samples were collected
in the 0−0.10 m and 0.10−0.20 m layers, in a trench opened next to
each of the 101 trees. In each soil sample, the following soil hydro-
physical and chemical attributes were determined: sand by using the
Sieving method and silt and clay fractions by using Pipette method (Gee
and Or, 2002); soil bulk density (Bd), using the Volumetric Ring
Method (Grossman and Reinsch, 2002); volumetric soil water content
(θ), at the moment of the soil sampling in triplicate, was calculated by
multiplying the gravimetric soil water content by the soil bulk density
(Dirksen, 1999); pH in water (pH), organic matter content (OM),
available phosphorus (P), and exchangeable potassium (K+), magne-
sium (Mg2+) and calcium (Ca2+) were determined following meth-
odologies described by Claessen (1997). In order to represent the 0-
0.20 m soil layer, the mean value of each soil attribute was calculated
from the 101 sampling points. Sampling in two soil layers (0-0.10 m
and 0.10−0.20 m) was carried out to represent the average of the
0−0.20 m layer.
The following attributes of each one of the 101 peach trees were
evaluated in 2010, 2011 and 2012: i) yield per tree (Y, kg tree−1): was
determined by weighing of all fruits per tree; ii) number of fruits per
tree (NF): was determined by counting the total fruits per tree; iii)
average individual fruit weight per individual tree (AFW, g) was de-
termined by the ratio between Y and NF; iv) flesh firmness (FF, lb):
measured with a hand penetrometer (FT 327, T.R. Turoni, Forli, Italy)
with an 8 mm tip in one fruit per tree and harvest date; v) total soluble
solid content (TSS, ºBrix): evaluated in the same fruit used to determine
FF, by extracting the juice and reading in a digital refractometer (Atago
PR-101, Atago Co Ltda., Japan). The number of harvest dates in 2010,
2011 and 2012 were 3, 5 and 4, respectively. Fruits were harvested
manually. Seeking to reduce the possible isolated effects, which might
have occurred in the peach orchard in each year of evaluation, the
mean value of each tree attribute was used in this study.
2.2. Classical statistical and geostatistical analyses
All data sets were submitted to descriptive statistics, calculating the
H. Oldoni, et al.
Fig. 1. Location of the study area in the Brazil (A) and Rio Grande do Sul (B) maps and the sampling experimental grid established in the peach orchard constituted of
101 georeferenced trees (C).
mean, median, minimum (Min) and maximum (Max) values, the stan-
dard deviation (s), coefficient of variation (CV) and skewness and
kurtosis coefficients as well. Data dispersion around the mean was
classified according to Warrick and Nielsen (1980) as: low – CV <
12%; moderate – 12% ≤ CV < 60%; and high – CV ≥ 60%. The
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K–S) non-parametric test, at 5% significance
level, was applied to check the normality of each data set’s distribution.
To select which soil and tree attributes could be used to delineate
the management zones, Pearson correlation coefficients among all soil
and tree attributes were calculated. Through the t test, at 5% and 1%
significance levels, only soil attributes that presented significant cor-
relation with tree attributes were selected.
The spatial variability structure of each selected soil and tree at-
tribute was characterized and quantified using isotropic experimental
semivariograms, calculated through the Matheron estimator (Journel
and Huijbregts, 1978). To each experimental semivariogram, theore-
tical semivariogram models (Nielsen and Wendroth, 2003) were ad-
justed and their respective adjustment parameters were obtained
(nugget effect: C0, sill: C0 + C and range: A). The degree of spatial
dependence [DSD (%) = (C0/(C + C0)×100] of each soil and tree at-
tribute was calculated and classified according to Cambardella et al.
(1994): DSD ≤ 25% – strong; 25 < DSD ≤ 75% – moderate; and
DSD > 75% – weak. To evaluate the quality of the semivariogram, the
cross-validation technique was used. When a spatial dependence
structure of a given variable was well adjusted by a theoretical semi-
variogram model, a contour map was constructed by using ordinary
kriging (Webster and Oliver, 2007).
The classical statistical and the Pearson’s correlation analyses were
carried out using the program R, version 3.3.1 (R Core Team, 2016),
through the “Rcmdr” package (Fox, 2005, 2017). The K–S test was
applied using the “stats” package (R Core Team, 2016). The geostatis-
tical analysis and the construction of contour maps were carried out
aided by the GS + software, version 7.0 (Gamma Design Software,
2004).
2.3. Multivariate statistical analysis
Previous to the multivariate statistical analyses, each data set was
standardized (mean = 0 and standard deviation = 1) aiming to trans-
form each original data to the same order of magnitude. Because the
variables present different orders of magnitude the use of the standar-
dized variables requires that the variance and covariance matrixes are
the same as the correlation matrix.
The principal component analysis (PCA) was applied to the selected
soil and tree data sets aiming at transforming correlated original vari-
ables into a smaller number of non-correlated variables, named
3
Soil & Tillage Research 191 (2019) 1–10
principal components (PCs) (Jolliffe, 2002). PCA is a dimension re-
duction technique that uses correlated attributes, or variables, and
identifies an orthogonal linear recombination of the attributes that
summarize the principal sources of variability in the data (Xin-Zhong
et al., 2009). In the present study, PCs were selected based on the fact
that they explain at least 70% of the total variance of each data set and
that each calculated eigenvalue was > 1.0 (Jolliffe, 2002; Li et al.,
2007). The factor score matrix of the selected PCs used to clustering
analysis was determined by multiplying the eigenvector matrix and the
standardized interpolated data matrix of the selected soil and tree at-
tributes, similarly to that used by Yao et al. (2014). The scores of each
selected principal component were plotted to obtain each component’s
contour map.
The delineation of the specific management zones in the peach
orchard was carried out through clustering analysis, using the fuzzy c-
means algorithm (Bezdek et al., 1984), applied to the factor score
matrix of the selected PCs. The fuzzy c-means clustering analysis al-
lows, through an iterative process, the best division of a data set into
different clusters with similar characteristics, calculating the center of
each cluster (centroid) and the membership value between each ob-
servation of the data set and each cluster centroid. Each observation
will belong to the cluster to which it presents the highest membership
value, i.e., defuzzication procedure (Guastaferro et al., 2010). The fol-
lowing definitions were used to carry out the clustering analysis: i)
Euclidian distance as a norm to express the distance between the ob-
servations and the cluster centroids; ii) value of the fuzziness weighting
exponent = 1.5; iii) maximum number of iterations = 150, this allowed
a maximum difference of 0.0001 for the convergence criterion of the
adopted interactive process (Odeh et al., 1992); and iv) minimum
number of clusters = 2 and maximum number of clusters = 6.
The choice of the best number of clusters (number of management
zones) to be adopted was in function of the fuzziness performance index
(FPI) and the modified partition entropy (MPE). The FPI indicates the
degree of separation between the observations and the clusters gener-
ated (Fridgen et al., 2004). The MPE indicates the disorder degree
created between the clusters. Its values range between 0 and 1, and the
closer to 0 it is, the better the division of clusters is. From the choice of
the best number of clusters, the map of management zones was ela-
borated and significant differences between zones evaluated using the
variance analysis.
The analyses were carried out using the program R - version 3.3.1,
with the packages: “base” (R Core Team, 2016) for the principal com-
ponent analysis; “e1071” (Meyer et al., 2015) for the fuzzy c-means
clustering analysis; and “Rcmdr” (Fox, 2005, 2017) for the variance
analysis.
H. Oldoni, et al. Soil & Tillage Research 191 (2019) 1–10

Table 1
Descriptive statistics and the nonparametric Kolmogorov–Smirnov test for all evaluated soil hydro-physical and chemical attributes in the 0−0.20 m soil layer of an
Aquertic Hapludalf.
Attribute Mean Median Minimum Maximum s CV (%) Skewness Kurtosis d

Sand (%) 58 61 33 72 8.63 14.8 −0.64 −0.48 0.14N

Clay (%) 21 20 13 36 5.15 24.9 0.73 −0.10 0.13N
Silt (%) 21 21 14 31 4.57 21.7 0.45 −0.71 0.09N
Bd (g cm−3) 1.22 1.23 1.08 1.36 0.06 4.6 −0.09 −0.10 0.05N
θ (%) 21.4 20.8 15.7 28.1 2.91 13.6 0.40 −0.53 0.10N
OM (%) 1.92 1.85 1.15 3.05 0.42 21.7 0.39 −0.61 0.11N
pH in water 6.1 6.1 5.2 7.7 0.43 7.1 0.35 1.06 0.06N
P (mg dm−3) 5.4 3.5 0.3 30.7 5.69 105.9 2.00 4.86 0.19NN
K+ (mg dm−3) 85.9 80.0 26.0 232.5 29.98 34.9 1.35 4.58 0.09N
Ca2+ (cmolc dm−3) 1.7 1.5 0.1 5.3 1.10 63.4 0.96 0.78 0.11N
Mg2+ (cmolc dm−3) 1.4 1.3 0.7 2.9 0.44 32.2 0.82 0.66 0.12N

Sand, Clay, Silt: contents of sand, clay and silt in the 0−0.20 m depth layer, respectively; Bd: soil bulk density; θ: volumetric soil water content; OM: organic matter;
P: available phosphorus; K+: exchangeable potassium; Ca2+: exchangeable calcium; Mg2+: exchangeable magnesium; s: standard deviation of each data set; CV:
coefficient of variation of each data set; d: calculated values of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (K–S critical value is 0.14 at 5% of probability); N: normal distribution of
data and NN: non-normal distribution according to the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test at 5% probability.

3. Results and discussion
Average values of sand, clay and silt contents indicate that the soil is
a sandy clay loam in the 0–0.20 m soil layer, acidity (pH in water =
6.1) close to that considered suitable (pH = 6.0) for the development
of peaches. The mean contents of organic matter (OM), available P and
exchangeable Ca2+ classified this soil as low, and exchangeable K+ and
Mg2+ classified as high (Table 1) (CQFS/SBCS, 2004).
All data set distributions presented close mean and median values,
except for Sand, P and K+ distributions (Table 1). The data dispersion
around the mean was considered high for P and Ca2+ data sets
(CV ≥ 60%), low for distributions of Bd and pH in water (CV < 12%)
and moderate for the remaining data sets (Warrick and Nielsen, 1980).
The degree of asymmetry of a data distribution is characterized by the
skewness coefficient, while the extent of peakedness or flatness of a
distribution is quantified by the kurtosis coefficient (Nielsen and
Wendroth, 2003). A normal probability distribution has values of both
coefficients equal to zero. The coefficients of skewness ranged from
-0.64 (for Sand) to +0.96 (for Ca2+), except for data distributions of P
(+2.00) and K+ (+1.35), which indicates that these elements have a
local distribution, that is, high values were found for these elements at
some points, but most values were low (Grego et al., 2006). The same
tendency was observed for the coefficients of kurtosis (Table 1). Based
on this, it can be seen that most of the data distributions tended to be
normal (except for P and K distributions that tended to be lognormal),
so the mean value of each data set can be considered the center of
distribution (Nielsen and Wendroth, 2003). However, only for P data
distribution this fact was not confirmed by applying the nonparametric
test of Kolmogorov-Smirnov at the 5% probability level (Table 1).
All data set distributions of tree attributes presented proximity be-
tween mean and median values (Table 2). The mean value of peach
yield per tree (Y) for all three years (2010, 2011 and 2012) was 14.1 kg
tree−1 which can be considered normal, since the variation within the
orchard was from 5.6–22.0 kg tree−1, values corresponding to 23 and
89% of this variety potential, respectively (Raseira et al., 2014)
(Table 2). A lower peach yield was obtained in 2010 due to an occur-
rence of a high wind event (72.4 km h−1) in the experimental area on
October 31, 2010, which caused a fruit fall during the growing fruit
period. The mean value of TSS content (12.6°Brix, Table 2) is within the
interval expected for the Esmeralda cultivar, which is between 12 and
14°Brix according to Raseira et al. (2014).
Based on the coefficient of variation´s (CV) classification proposed
by Warrick and Nielsen (1980), NF (CV = 20.4%) and Y (CV = 22.1%)
data distributions were classified as being of moderate variability (12%
≤ CV < 60%), while those of FF, TSS and AFW were classified as of
low dispersion (CV < 12%). Liguori et al. (2013), studying the varia-
bility of fruit quality in nectarine [Prunus persica (L.) Batsch] reported
that the data variability of NF, TSS and AFW tree attributes increases
with ripening and delay in the fruit harvest. This shows that the fruit
harvest carried out alternately (on different days of each evaluated
year), might have influenced the low CV values for NF, TSS and AFW
data set distributions in the present study (Table 2). All tree attribute
distributions showed a tendency toward normality according to K–S test
at 5% probability.
The majority of the soil attributes presented statistically significant
correlations with tree attributes, except for silt, Bd, pH and Ca2+
(Table 3). The tree attributes FF and NF did not present correlation with
the soil attributes under evaluation. Based on that, the soil attributes:
Sand, Clay, θ, OM, P, K+ and Mg2+ and the tree attributes: TSS, AFW
and Y were used as input data for the delineation of the orchard
management zones.
A positive correlation between TSS and Sand variables and a ne-
gative correlation of TSS with Clay, θ, OM and K+ variables was found
at least at the 5% probability level (Table 3). This can be ascribed to a
dilution effect, since the higher water availability for the peach crop
can be related to the increase of clay and OM contents in the soil layer

Table 2
Descriptive statistics and the nonparametric Kolmogorov–Smirnov test for all evaluated peach attributes.
Attribute Mean Median Min Max s CV (%) Skewness Kurtosis d

FF (lb) 7.3 7.3 5.9 9.8 0.61 8.3 2.53 0.84 0.11N
TSS (ºBrix) 12.6 12.6 10.2 14.2 0.76 6.0 0.60 −0.38 0.08N
NF 133.0 135.3 56.0 202.3 27.20 20.4 0.06 −0.19 0.05N
AFW (g) 108.0 107.4 73.2 146.8 10.93 10.1 1.65 0.20 0.07N
Y (kg tree−1) 14.1 14.2 5.6 22.0 3.12 22.1 0.23 −0.21 0.04N

FF: flesh firmness; TSS: total soluble solids content; NF: number of fruits per tree; AFW: average fruit weight per individual tree; Y: peach yield per tree; s: standard
deviation of each data set; CV: coefficient of variation of each data set; d: calculated values of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (K–S critical value is 0.14 at 5% of
probability); N: normal distribution of data according to the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test at 5% probability.

4
H. Oldoni, et al. Soil & Tillage Research 191 (2019) 1–10

Table 3
Matrix of Pearson’s correlation coefficients between soil properties and the mean values of peach attributes during the three years of evaluation.
Attribute Sand Clay Silt Bd θ OM pH P K+ Ca2+ Mg2+ FF TSS NF AFW Y

Sand 1.00
Clay −0.90** 1.00
Silt −0.87** 0.58** 1.00
Bd 0.16 −0.10 −0.18 1.00
θ −0.84** 0.81** 0.69** −0.41** 1.00
OM −0.77** 0.78** 0.57** −0.24* 0.79** 1.00
pH 0.28** −0.40** −0.07 −0.17 −0.23* −0.14 1.00
P 0.22* −0.15 −0.25* 0.21* −0.27** −0.09 −0.28** 1.00
K+ −0.25* 0.25* 0.19 −0.16 0.25* 0.14 −0.03 0.10 1.00
Ca2+ −0.17 0.08 0.23* −0.23* 0.17 0.20* 0.28** −0.27** 0.11 1.00
Mg2+ −0.69** 0.66** 0.57** −0.19 0.66** 0.73** 0.18 −0.22* 0.30** 0.29** 1.00
FF 0.06 −0.05 −0.05 0.13 −0.14 −0.12 −0.11 0.09 −0.11 −0.10 −0.09 1.00
TSS 0.28** −0.30** −0.19 0.08 −0.31** −0.21* 0.08 0.18 −0.30** 0.12 −0.16 0.18 1.00
NF −0.01 0.04 −0.02 −0.00 0.02 0.16 0.04 0.04 −0.05 −0.06 0.15 0.04 −0.07 1.00
AFW −0.13 0.20* 0.02 −0.06 0.23* 0.16 0.02 −0.23* 0.21* −0.01 0.13 −0.09 −0.64** 0.08 1.00
Y −0.11 0.18 0.01 −0.02 0.14 0.25* 0.02 −0.06 0.08 −0.07 0.23* 0.01 −0.32** 0.91** 0.43** 1.00

Sand, Clay, Silt: sand, clay and silt contents in the 0-0.20 m soil layer, respectively (%); Bd: soil bulk density (g cm−3); θ: volumetric soil water content (%); OM:
organic matter content (%); P: available phosphorus (mg dm−3); K+: exchangeable potassium (mg dm−3); Ca2+: exchangeable calcium (cmolc dm−3); Mg2+:
exchangeable magnesium (cmolc dm−3); FF: flesh firmness (lb); TSS: total soluble solids content (ºBrix); NF: number of fruits per tree; AFW: average fruit weight per
individual tree (g); Y: peach yield per tree (kg tree−1); * and **: significant correlation at 5% and 1% probability level through the t test, respectively.

under evaluation, increasing the proportion of liquids in the fruits and Table 4
decreasing the content of soluble solids. Theoretical semivariograms and their respective parameters (C0, C0+C and A),
The results from various studies showed consistently that the in- statistics of the fitted models (r2), spatial dependence degree (DSD) and results
crease in water content with the addition of organic matter is higher at of the cross-validation procedure (CR and R2) for all selected soil and tree at-
field capacity than that at permanent wilting point (Hudson, 1994; tributes.
Minasny and Mcbratney, 2018; Obour et al., 2018). This effect is more Attribute Model C0 C0 + C A DSD r2 Cross-validation
pronounced for sand soils with 0–20% clay content, and becomes
smaller from 20 to 40% clay and insignificant when clay is greater than CR R2

40% (Minasny and McBratney, 2018). According to Saxton and Rawls Sand Spherical 0.100 40.83 32.7 0.2 0.85 1.01 0.75
(2006), OM effects are similar to those of clay, thus those textures with Clay Gaussian 6.400 46.14 134.1 13.9 0.98 1.05 0.66
high clay content mask the effects of increased OM, which reduces the θ Spherical 0.430 5.20 27.3 8.3 0.96 1.00 0.61
soil potential to retain water at high water tension. This result can also OM Spherical 0.028 0.22 103.2 12.7 0.87 1.00 0.56
ln P Spherical 0.279 2.39 135.3 11.7 0.91 0.93 0.30
be corroborated by the strong negative correlation between TSS and
K+ Spherical 1.000 881.40 25.1 0.1 0.88 0.38 0.05
AFW variables (-0.64, Table 3). Lopez et al. (2010), in a study carried Mg2+ Spherical 0.036 0.26 127.2 14.0 0.90 0.96 0.40
out in a peach orchard in Spain, found a positive effect of reduced soil TSS Spherical 0.005 0.57 20.5 0.9 0.78 0.37 0.03
water availability on fruit quality. These authors concluded that trees AFW Gaussian 0.100 124.30 21.1 0.1 0.94 0.92 0.30
Y Spherical 1.598 9.63 29.0 16.6 0.90 0.71 0.19
with lower water availability during the last stage of the fruit devel-
opment yielded fruits with lower weight but higher TSS values. Terra
Sand and Clay: sand and clay contents, respectively (%); θ: volumetric soil
et al. (2014) studied the relation among soil and tree attributes in a water content (%); OM: organic matter content (%); ln P: natural logarithm of
peach orchard by applying multivariate cross-canonical correlation available phosphorus values (mg dm−3); K+: exchangeable potassium (mg
analysis. The negative relation between K+ and TSS values found in our dm−3); Mg2+: exchangeable magnesium (cmolc dm−3); TSS: total soluble solids
study (Table 3) is not common in the literature as it can be seen in the (ºBrix); AFW: average fruit weight per individual tree (g); Y: peach yield per
studies of Ruiz (2006); Ben Mimoun et al. (2009) and Dbara et al. tree (kg tree−1); C0: nugget effect; C0 + C: sill; A: range (m); r2: determination
(2016). Therefore, other factors (for instance, the availability of soil coefficient values for the adjusted theoretical semivariograms; CR and R2: re-
water during the high fruit growth phase which is close to the harvest) gression and determination coefficients related to the cross-validation proce-
can be acting on the relation between both variables in the orchard. dure, respectively.
Previous to the geostatistical analysis, P data were log-transformed
(ln-based) since their distribution indicated non-normality (Table 1). of the total variance (C0 + C) that is explained randomly and the
The structures of spatial variability of most of the soil variables were proportion of the structured variance (C) explained percentually. A
modeled by the spherical model, except for clay content which was strong dependence (DSD ≤ 25%) means that most of the variance takes
described with the gaussian model (Table 4). The spherical model is, part in C and a small part of the nugget effect (C0) (Bitencourt et al.,
according to McBratney and Webster (1986); Cavalcante et al. (2007) 2016). DSD values were classified as strong (DSD ≤ 25%) for all se-
and Liu et al. (2015), the most frequently adjusted one to describe the lected soil attributes (Table 4), indicating that the estimates of the
structure of spatial variability of soil attributes. variances during kriging will be better and the maps more precise, so
The spatial range (A) varied from 25.1 m (K+ variable) to 135.3 m that homogeneous management zones for soil fertilization are better
(ln P variable) (Table 4). The greater the range of the spatial depen- defined. The determination coefficient values r2 related to the fitted
dence is, the greater will be the distance in which there will be simi- theoretical semivariograms varied from 0.85 to 0.98 indicating that the
larity between neighbors, indicating a higher length of the spatial precision of all adjustments is suitable.
continuity of the attribute under study. On the other hand, smaller The adjusted theoretical semivariogram must adequately represent
ranges show that the variance tends quickly to a random behavior, the values of the estimated semivariance as a function of the distance
indicating a smaller length of the spatial continuity of the attribute within the spatial dependence range for the use of the geostatistical
under study. DSD is a non-dimensional measure of the spatial depen- kriging interpolator. According to Nielsen and Wendroth (2003), this
dence, proposed by Cambardella et al. (1994) to express the proportion means that part of the semivariogram reflects the structured variation

5
H. Oldoni, et al. Soil & Tillage Research 191 (2019) 1–10

Fig. 2. Spatial distribution maps for all selected soil hydro-physical and chemical attributes in the 0-0.20 m soil layer: (A) sand content; (B) clay content; (C)
volumetric soil water content (θ); (D) soil organic matter (OM); (E) available phosphorus (P); (F) exchangeable potassium (K+); and (G) exchangeable magnesium
(Mg2+).

Fig. 3. Spatial distribution maps for the selected peach attributes (A) total soluble solids (TSS); (B) average fruit weight per individual tree (AFW); and (C) peach
yield per tree (Y).

of the attribute under study. The cross-validation procedure has been
one of the most used methods to judge the goodness of the fitted
semivariogram models (Webster and Oliver, 2007). From Table 4, it can
be seen that the quality of the fitted semivariogram models is suitable
for the majority of soil attributes, except for the K+ spatial structure in
which the regression coefficient (CR) of 0.38 was not close to one and
the determination coefficient (R2) of 0.05 was low leading to greater
deviation between measured and estimated values through kriging.
The spherical model described the spatial distributions of TSS and Y
tree attributes, while the AFW distribution was modeled by the
Gaussian model (Table 4). The spatial range (A) values varied from
20.5 m (TSS variable) to 29.0 m (Y variable). DSD values for spatial
distributions of TSS, AFW and Y attributes were classified as strong
(DSD ≤ 25%) (Cambardella et al., 1994). The quality of the fitted
semivariogram model for the TSS variable, as expressed by the cross-
validation procedure results, was lower than those ones for the other
two variables.
The largest sand concentrations in the 0-0.20 m soil layer are lo-
cated in the west part of the experimental area (Fig. 2A). The opposite
occurs with the spatial distribution of clay contents (Fig. 2B) and θ
(Fig. 2C), since θ is a soil attribute that integrates factors related to the
texture and structure of a soil (Reichardt and Timm, 2016). The spatial
distributions of OM (Fig. 2D) and Mg2+ variables (Fig. 2G) were si-
milar, with greater concentrations in the east part of the experimental
area. It can also be seen that the K+ spatial distribution (Fig. 2F) was
more heterogeneous as compared to those of OM, P and Mg2+ attri-
butes. The spatial distribution of P (Fig. 2E) was opposite to those of
clay, OM and Mg2+ distributions in the 0−0.20 m soil layer (Fig. 2B, D
and G, respectively). This result can be associated with management
factors. The increase in P concentrations in the northwest part of the
orchard (Fig. 2E) might have occurred because of the difficulty of
maneuvering the fertilizer spreader mounted to the tractor at the be-
ginning of tree rows. This caused an accumulation of fertilizers in this
part, which leads to incorrect accumulation of P, since it has low mo-
bility through the soil profile when compared to other nutrients.
The spatial distributions of TSS, AFW and Y tree attributes presented
high heterogeneity in the orchard area (Fig. 3) as compared to those for
all selected soil attributes, since the spatial distributions of all soil at-
tributes, in general, presented homogeneous and well-defined zones
with greater extension in the experimental area (Fig. 2A to G). This
shows that the spatial variability of the tree attributes is not limited to
their complex interrelation with the selected soil attributes, but that it

6
H. Oldoni, et al. Soil & Tillage Research 191 (2019) 1–10

depends on several other factors such as microclimate, health and plant
genetic quality.
The north and northeast parts of the orchard area are limited by
native forest, which interferes in sunlight incidence in these parts
during the first hours of the day. This decreases soil temperature and,
consequently, reduces the speed of organic compound degradation in
the soil (Erhagen et al., 2013) (higher OM contents; Fig. 2D). As a
consequence, lower TSS values were found in these parts (Fig. 3A).
Alcobendas et al. (2013), assessing the quality of peach fruits in a
commercial orchard in Spain, found lower TSS values when the fruits’
exposure to sunlight was lower.
In order to reduce the dimensionality of both groups, the principal
component analysis (Jolliffe, 2002) was applied to the selected soil
(Sand, Clay, θ, OM, P, K+ and Mg2+ variables) and tree (TSS, AFW and
Y variables) attributes. Principal component analysis is a dimension
reduction technique that uses correlated attributes, or variables, and
identifies orthogonal linear recombination of the properties that sum-
marize the principal sources of variability in the data (Li et al., 2007;
Xin-Zhong et al., 2009; Yao et al., 2014). The first three components
(PC1, PC2 and PC3) presented eigenvalues > 1.0 and explained 73.40%
of the total variance in the data sets (Table 5). Therefore, PC1, PC2 and
PC3 were used to define the orchard potential management zones.
The first principal component (PC1) explained 44.95% of the total
data variance (Table 5), being that Clay, θ, OM and Mg2+ attributes
presented higher negative influence to this component, while the Sand
content presented high positive influence to PC1, as indicated by the
PC1 component loadings (Table 5). PC1 can be considered the com-
ponent linked to the availability and retention of water and organic
matter in the soil. Soil organic matter is an indicator of soil quality and
affects soil physical, chemical and biological properties (Castro et al.,
2015). As a key variable for a number of climatic, ecological, hydro-
logical, and nutrient-based processes operating in different intensities
and, at different spatio-temporal scales, soil organic matter is highly
variable in time and space (Nielsen and Wendroth, 2003) across land-
scapes.
The PC1 spatial distribution map (Fig. 4A) is similar to that of the
Sand (Fig. 2A), as a result of the positive relation between them. On the
other hand, spatial distributions of PC1 and those of Clay, θ, MO and
Mg2+ attributes were also similar but they are negatively correlated.
The second principal component (PC2) explained 17.37% of the
total variance of the data sets, and can be named as the plant compo-
nent, which received greatest positive influence of AFW and Y tree
attributes. A negative influence of TSS on PC2 was found (Table 5). PC3
explained 11.07% of the total variance, receiving greater positive in-
fluence of P and K+ soil variables and can be considered the soil
macronutrient component.
The FPI and MPE values as a function of the number of management
zones are presented in Fig. 5. The optimal number of management
zones for each computed index is when the index is at the minimum,
representing the least membership sharing (FPI) or greatest amount of
organization (MPE) as a result of the clustering process (Odeh et al.,
1992; Fridgen et al., 2004). FPI and MPE minimum values were ob-
tained when the number of management zones was 2 (Fig. 5). It means
that the data set of selected measured properties present the lowest
variance, the highest degree of membership sharing among classes and
reflects strong organization in the classification inside each delimited
management zone. The farmer’s ability to manage the created number
of management zones needs to be considered in order to use the existing
data, in conjunction with his knowledge to understand the yield pro-
cesses in the field. Therefore, a more efficient orchard management can
be carried out.
The defuzzication procedure was applied by using the membership
values from the 2 management zones, caused each observation (inter-
polated point) to be classified to a unique management zone
(Guastaferro et al., 2010). Therefore, each observation received a value
z equal to 1 or 2 (zones 1 and 2) and, from these values, the map of
management zones was elaborated (Fig. 6).
Through the variance analysis, it was possible to identify significant
differences between management zones for most of the attributes
(Sand, Clay, θ, OM, Mg2+, TSS and AFW, considering the p-value < 1%
and < 5%; Table 6). Based on the mean values of soil properties
(Table 6), zone 2 presented the highest values of Clay, θ, MO and Mg2+,
showing greater soil aggregation and higher plant water and nutrient
retention potential (Aggelides and Londra, 2000; Celik et al., 2004). For
tree attributes, zone 2 presented the highest AFW values and the lowest
SST values.
Although the peach yield per tree (Y) did not present a significant
difference between the management zones (Table 6), knowing the dif-
ference between zones of the AFW attribute can serve as a basis to
define the peach productive potential and profitability of the peach
trees in each zone. The peach fruit size is regarded a high fruit quality
attribute because it is the attribute with the highest economic relevance
(Lopez et al., 2010).
The division of the orchard area in two management zones allows

Table 5
Results of the principal component analysis applied to the soil (sand and clay contents, soil water content, soil organic matter, available phosphorus, exchangeable
potassium and exchangeable magnesium) and tree attributes (total soluble solid contents, average fruit weight per individual tree and peach yield per tree).
Principal Eigenvalues Variance (%) Cumulative
component variance (%)

PC 1 4.495 44.95 44.95

PC 2 1.737 17.37 62.33
PC 3 1.107 11.07 73.40
PC 4 0.894 8.95 82.34
PC 5 0.647 6.47 88.82
PC 6 0.359 3.59 92.40
PC 7 0.316 3.16 95.56
PC 8 0.217 2.17 97.73
PC 9 0.145 1.45 99.19
PC 10 0.081 0.82 100.00

Principal component loadings for each attribute

Sand Clay θ OM P K+ Mg2+ TSS AFW Y
PC 1 0.902 −0.899 −0.899 −0.860 0.280 −0.361 −0.804 0.463 −0.384 −0.328
PC 2 0.258 −0.194 −0.171 −0.242 −0.174 0.207 −0.206 −0.702 0.799 0.546
PC 3 0.016 0.039 −0.069 −0.004 0.787 0.688 0.019 −0.056 −0.065 0.002

Sand and Clay: sand and clay contents in the 0-0.20 m soil layer, respectively (%); θ: volumetric soil water content (%); OM: organic matter content (%); P: available
phosphorus (mg dm−3); K+: exchangeable potassium (mg dm−3); Mg2+: exchangeable magnesium (cmolc dm−3); TSS: total soluble solids content (ºBrix); AFW:
average fruit weight per individual tree (g); Y: peach yield per tree (kg tree−1).

7
H. Oldoni, et al. Soil & Tillage Research 191 (2019) 1–10

Fig. 4. Spatial distribution maps for the scores of the first three principal components (PCs): (A) PC 1; (B) PC 2; and (C) PC 3.

Fig. 5. Calculated fuzziness performance index (FPI) and modified partition
entropy (MPE) against cluster numbers.
Fig. 6. Spatial distribution map for the resulting management zones (zones 1
and 2).
an economically viable management, easy for the producer, for ex-
ample, to apply fertilizers, irrigation and cultural practices as well. The
management of each variable should be based on the expert knowledge
of the farmer and technical manuals that guide the response of each
attribute to the most appropriate expected level. The division in man-
agement zones leads the farmer to reduce the number of samplings with
adequate representativeness. Based on the sampling, the peach orchard
can be irrigated, fertilized or conducted in a similar way in each zone,
aiming to create the conditions to the highest economic return.
The irrigation management directly influences both yield and fruit
quality of peaches (Alcobendas et al., 2013). Therefore, sensors to
monitor soil water content can be installed in different zones, and the
crop water demand be attended according to the needs of the trees in
each zone. With regard to soil fertility, fruit quality and yield man-
agement in the peach orchard can be improved with an adequate nu-
tritional management (Chatzitheodorou et al., 2004; Ben Mimoun et al.,
2009). Doses of fertilizers can be applied to each management zone
depending on its demands, as suggested in several studies
(Aggelopooulou et al., 2013; Yao et al., 2014; Tripathi et al., 2015).
Cultural practices, likewise, can be carried out in a differentiated
basis in each management zone. As for example, the harvest date can be
postponed in trees cultivated in Zone 1. Fruit weight is associated to the
fruit ripening time in the tree, which tends to increase when the harvest
is delayed (Liguori et al., 2013). The higher is the soil water content,
the higher is the plant vegetative growth. Therefore, the pruning in
Zone 2 could be carried out seeking higher sunlight exposure inside the
canopy in relation to that in the Zone 1, providing higher TSS content in
the fruits (Motisi et al., 2006; Alcobendas et al., 2013; Liguori et al.,
2013).
The combined use of statistical tools from the geostatistical and
multivariate analysis allowed the reduction of the variability of soil and
tree attributes within each one of the two outlined zones providing an
opportunity to adopt specific management of each individual soil or
tree attribute or of each soil/tree group zone. However, the low cor-
relation between soil and tree attributes in this present study, mainly
due to the high spatial variability of tree attributes, indicates that for
taking better advantage of the real potential of the peach orchard, other
factors should be taken into consideration, such as microclimate, health
and seedling rootstock variability. The use of canopy sensors, for ex-
ample, which has allowed high sampling density at data survey of the
vegetation index in vineyards in precision viticulture (Trought and
Bramley, 2011; King et al., 2014), can be a future alternative to identify
in more details the variability of peach canopy characteristics in the
area. From this, a better understanding of the correlation between yield
and fruit quality variables can be find. Therefore, the delineation of
management zones is a promising alternative to improve the profit of
peach orchards for small and medium producers.
4. Conclusions
- The structure of the spatial variability of the majority of the
evaluated soil and tree attributes was best modeled by the spherical
semivariogram model and the degree of spatial dependence of all

Table 6
Mean values of each management zone and variance analysis for all selected soil and tree attributes.
Zone n Sand Clay θ OM P K+ Mg2+ TSS AFW Y
(%) (mg dm−3) (cmolc dm−3) (ºBrix) (g) (kg tree−1)

1 60 64.17 17.32 19.48 1.66 6.46 81.82 1.13 12.81 105.25 13.72
2 41 49.40 25.67 24.10 2.30 3.79 91.89 1.67 12.25 112.03 14.77
Pr (> F) < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.020 0.097 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.002 0.097

n: number of sampling points; Sand and Clay: sand and clay contents in the 0-0.20 m soil layer, respectively; θ: volumetric soil water content; OM: organic matter
content; P: available phosphorus; K+: exchangeable potassium; Mg2+: exchangeable magnesium; TSS: total soluble solids content; AFW: average fruit weight per
individual tree; Y: peach yield per tree.

8
H. Oldoni, et al.
attributes was classified as strong.
- The spatial variability of tree attributes was more heterogeneous as
compared to those of soil attributes in the orchard area.
- Yield and quality of peach fruits were affected by texture, water
content, organic matter, exchangeable potassium and magnesium of the
0−0.20 m soil layer.
- The optimal number of management zones for the peach orchard
was two and the most of soil and tree attributes presented statistical
differences in each defined management zone.
- The delineation of management zones based on the spatial varia-
bility of soil and tree attributes opens the opportunity to the farmer to
manage site-specifically soil fertility, irrigation, and cultural practices,
aiming at the increase in yield and fruit quality in peach orchard.
Acknowledgements
To Embrapa Clima Temperado - RS for the infrastructure; to the
producer Marcus Fiss for granting the experimental area, and to the
CNPq for granting scholarships. This study was financed in part by the
Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brazil
(CAPES) - Finance Code 001"
References
Aggelides, S.M., Londra, P.A., 2000. Effect of compost produced from town wastes and
sewage sludge on the physical properties. Bioresour. Technol. Rep. 71, 253–259.
Aggelopooulou, K., Castrignanò, A., Gemtos, T., De Benedetto, D., 2013. Delineation of
management zones in an apple orchard in Greece using a multivariate approach.
Comput. Electron. Agric. 90, 119–130.
Alcobendas, R., Mirás-Avalos, J.M., Alarcón, J.J., Nicolás, E., 2013. Effects of irrigation
and fruit position on size, colour, firmness and sugar contents of fruits in a mid-late
maturing peach cultivar. Sci. Hort. 164, 340–347.
Ben Mimoun, M., Ghrab, M., Ghanem, M., Elloumi, O., 2009. Effects of potassium foliar
spray on olive, peach and plum, Part 2: peach and plum experiments. Optimizing
Crop Nutrition. International Potash Institute. E-ifc 19, 14–17. http://www.
ipipotash.org/fr/eifc/2009/19/4.
Bezdek, J.C., Ehrlich, R., Full, W., 1984. FCM: the fuzzy c-means clustering algorithm.
Comput. Geosci. 10, 191–203.
Bitencourt, D.G.B., Barros, W.S., Timm, L.C., She, D., Penning, L.H., Parfitt, J.M.B.,
Reichardt, K., 2016. Multivariate and geostatistical analyses to evaluate lowland soil
levelling effects on physico-chemical properties. Soil Till. Res. 156, 63–73.
Cambardella, C.A., Moorman, T.B., Nocak, J.M., Parkin, T.B., Karlen, D.L., Turco, R.F.,
Konopka, A.E., 1994. Field-scale variability of soil properties in central Iowa soils.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 58, 1501–1511.
Castro, G.S.A., Crusciol, C.A.C., Calonego, J.C., Rosolem, C.A., 2015. Management im-
pacts on soil organic matter of tropical soils. Vadose Zone J. 14 (1), 1–8. https://doi.
org/10.2136/vzj2014.07.0093.
Cavalcante, E.G.S., Alves, M.C., Souza, Z.M., Pereira, G.T., 2007. Variabilidade espacial
de atributos químicos do solo sob diferentes usos e manejos. R. Bras. Ci. Solo 31,
10–18.
Celik, I., Ortas, I., Kilic, S., 2004. Effects of compost, mycorrhiza, manure and fertilizer on
some physical properties of a Chromoxerert soil. Soil Till. Res. 78, 59–67.
Chatzitheodorou, I.T., Sotiropoulos, T.E., Mouhtaridou, G.I., 2004. Effect of nitrogen,
phosphorus, potassium fertilization and manure on fruit yield and fruit quality of the
peach cultivars ‘Spring Time’ and ‘Red Haven’. Agron. Res. 2, 135–143.
Claessen, M.E.C., 1997. Manual de métodos de análise de solo (Org.). second ed. rev.
atual Embrapa-CNPS, Rio de Janeiro.
CQFS/SBCS Comissão de Química e Fertilidade do Solo, 2004. Manual de adubação e de
calagem para os Estados do Rio Grande do Sul e de Santa Catarina, tenth ed.
Sociedade Brasileira de Ciência do Solo, Núcleo Regional Sul, Porto Alegre.
Davatgar, N., Neishabouri, M.R., Sepaskhah, A.R., 2012. Delineation of site specific nu-
trient management zones for a paddy cultivated area based on soil fertility using
fuzzy clustering. Geoderma 173–174, 111–118.
Dbara, S., Gader, T., Ben Mimoun, M., 2016. Improving yield and fruit quality of peach
cv. ‘Flordastar’ by potassium foliar spray associated to regulated deficit irrigation. J.
New Sci. Agric. Biotechnol 28, 1631–1637.
Dirksen, C., 1999. Soil Physics Measurements. Catena Verlag, Reiskirchen.
Erhagen, B., Öquist, M., Sparrman, T., Haei, M., Ilstedt, U., Hedenstrom, M., Schleucher,
J., Nilsson, M.B., 2013. Temperature response of litter and soil organic matter de-
composition is determined by chemical composition of organic material. Glob.
Change Biol. Bioenergy 19, 3858–3871.
Fachinello, J.C., Pasa, M.S., Schmtiz, J.D., Betemps, D.L., 2011. Situação e perspectivas da
fruticultura de clima temperado no Brasil. Rev. Bras. Frutic. Special 109–120.
FAOstat, 2017. Food and Agricultural Organization Statistical Database. FAO, Rome.
http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC.
Fox, J., 2005. The R commander: a basic statistics graphical user interface to R. J. Stat.
Softw. 9, 1–42.
Fox, J., 2017. . Using the R Commander: A Point-and-Click Interface or R. Boca Raton FL.
9
Soil & Tillage Research 191 (2019) 1–10
Chapman and Hall/CRC Press.
Fridgen, J.J., Kitchen, N.R., Sudduth, K.A., Drummond, S.T., Wiebold, W.J., Fraisse, C.W.,
2004. Management zone analyst (MZA): software for subfield management zone
delineation. Agron. J. 96, 100–108.
Gamma Design Software, 2004. GS+: Geostatistics for the Environmental Sciences.
Gamma Design Software, Plainwell.
Gee, G.W., Or, D., 2002. The solid phase: particle-size analysis. In: Dane, J.H., Topp, G.C.
(Eds.), Methods of Soil Analysis. Physical Methods. Soil Science Society of America,
Madison, pp. 255–293.
Goovaerts, P., 1998. Geostatistical tools for characterizing the spatial variability of mi-
crobiological and physico-chemical soil properties. Bio. Fert. Soils 27, 315–334.
Grego, C.R., Vieira, S.R., Lourenção, A.L., 2006. Spatial distribution of Pseudaletia sequax
Franclemlont in triticale under no-till management. Sci. Agric. 63, 321–327.
Grossman, R.B., Reinsch, T.G., 2002. The solid phase: bulk density and linear ex-
tensibility. In: Dane, J.H., Topp, G.C. (Eds.), Methods of Soil Analysis: Physical
Methods. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, pp. 201–228.
Guastaferro, F., Castrignanò, A., De Benedetto, D., Sollitto, D., Troccoli, A., Cafarelli, B.,
2010. A comparison of different algorithms for the delineation of management zones.
Precision Agric. 11, 600–620.
Hudson, B.D., 1994. Soil organic matter and available water capacity. J. Soil Water
Conserv. 49, 189–194.
IBGE, 2016. Área colhida e quantidade produzida da lavoura permanente. Instituto
Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, Rio de Janeiro. http://www.ibge.gov.br/
estadosat/.
Jolliffe, I.T., 2002. Principal Component Analysis, second ed. Springer, New York.
Journel, A.G., Huijbregts, J.C.H., 1978. Mining Geostatistics. Academic Press, London.
King, P.D., Smart, R.E., McClellan, D.J., 2014. Within-vineyard variability in vine vege-
tative growth, yield, and fruit and wine composition of Cabernet Sauvignon in
Hawke’s Bay, New Zealand. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 20, 234–246.
Li, Y., Shi, Z., Li, F., Li, H., 2007. Delineation of site-specific management zones using
fuzzy clustering analysis in a coastal saline land. Comput. Electron. Agric. 56,
174–186.
Liguori, G., Farina, V., Gullo, G., Inglese, P., 2013. Tree and orchard variability of Silver
King nectarine (Prunus persica (L.) Batsch) fruit quality components. Hort. Sci.
(Prague) 40, 72–77.
Liu, C.L., Wu, Y.Z., Liu, Q.J., 2015. Effects of land use on spatial patterns of soil properties
in a rocky mountain area of Northern China. Arab. J. Geosci. 8, 1181–1194.
Lopez, G., Behboudian, M.H., Vallverdu, X., Mata, M., Girona, J., Marsal, J., 2010.
Mitigation of severe water stress by fruit thinning in ‘O’ Henry’ peach: implications
for fruit quality. Sci. Hort. 125, 294–300.
McBratney, A.B., Webster, R., 1986. Choosing functions for semi-variograms of soil
properties and fitting them to sampling estimates. J. Soil Sci. 37, 617–639.
Meyer, D., Dimitriadou, E., Hornik, K., Weingessel, A., Leisch, F., Chang, C.C., Lin, C.C.,
2015. Misc Functions of the Department of Statistics, Probability Theory Group
(Formerly: E1071). e1071. TU Wien. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=e1071.
Minasny, B., Mcbratney, A.B., 2018. Limited effect of organic matter on soil available
water capacity. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 69, 39–47.
Motisi, A., Marra, F.P., Gullo, G., Mafrica, R., Zappia, R., 2006. Relationship between
canopy architecture and fruit quality of ‘Rich May’ peach grafted onto ‘Penta’ and
‘GF677’rootstocks. Acta Hort. 713, 365–371.
Nielsen, D.R., Wendroth, O., 2003. Spatial and temporal statistics: sampling field soils and
their vegetation. Catena Verlag, Reiskirchen.
Obour, P.B., Jensen, J.L., Lamandé, M., Watts, C.W., Munkholm, L.J., 2018. Soil organic
matter widens the range of water contents for tillage. Soil Till. Res. 182, 57.
Odeh, I.O.A., McBratney, A.B., Chittleborough, D.J., 1992. Soil pattern recognition with
fuzzy-c-means: application to classification and soil-landform interrelationships. Soil
Sci. Soc. Am. J. 56, 505–516.
Peralta, N.R., Costa, J.L., Balzarini, M., Franco, M.C., Córdoba, M., Bullock, D., 2015.
Delineation of management zones to improve nitrogen management of wheat.
Comput. Electron. Agric. 110, 103–113.
R Core Team, 2016. R: a Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R
Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. https://www.R-project.org.
Raseira, M.C.B., Pereira, J.F.M., Carvalho, F.L.C. (Eds.), 2014. Pessegueiro. Embrapa,
Brasília.
Reichardt, K., Timm, L.C., 2016. Solo, Planta e Atmosfera: conceitos, processos e
aplicações, third ed. Manole, Barueri.
Ruiz, R., 2006. Effects of different potassium fertilizers on yield, fruit quality and nutri-
tional status of ‘Fairlane’ nectarine trees and on soil fertility. Acta Hort. 721,
185–190.
Saxton, K.E., Rawls, W.J., 2006. Soil water characteristic estimates by texture and organic
matter for hydrologic solutions. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 70, 1569–1578.
Soil Survey Staff, 2010. Keys to Soil Taxonomy, eleventh ed. USDA-Natural Resources
Conservation Service, Washington, DC.
Terra, V.S.S., Valgas, R.A., Reisser Júnior, C., Timm, L.C., Pereira, J.F.M., Carvalho,
F.L.C., Oldoni, H., 2014. Multivariate analysis applied to the study of the relationship
between soil and plant properties in a peach orchard. R. Bras. Ci. Solo 38, 755–764.
Tripathi, R., Nayak, A.K., Shahid, M., Lal, B., Gautam, P., Raja, R., Mohanty, S., Kumar,
A., Panda, B.B., Sahoo, R.N., 2015. Delineation of soil management zones for a rice
cultivated area in eastern India using fuzzy clustering. Catena 133, 128–136.
Trought, M.C.T., Bramley, R.G.V., 2011. Vineyard variability in Marlborough, New
Zealand: characterising spatial and temporal changes in fruit composition and juice
quality in the vineyard. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 17, 79–89.
Valente, D.S.M., Queiroz, D.M., Pinto, F.A.C., Santos, N.T., Santos, F.L., 2012. Definition
of management zones in coffee production fields based on apparent soil electrical
conductivity. Sci. Agric. 69, 173–179.
Vasu, D., Singh, S.K., Sahu, N., Tiwary, P., Chandran, P., Duraisami, V.P., Ramamurthy,
H. Oldoni, et al.
V., Lalitha, M., Kalaiselvi, B., 2017. Assessment of spatial variability of soil properties
using geospatial techniques for farm level nutrient management. Soil Till. Res. 169,
25–34.
Warrick, A.W., Nielsen, D.R., 1980. Spatial variability of soil physical properties the soil.
In: Hill, D. (Ed.), Applications of Soil Physics. Academic Press, New York, pp.
319–344.
Webster, R., Oliver, M.A., 2007. Geostatistics for Environmental Scientists, second ed.
10
Soil & Tillage Research 191 (2019) 1–10
Wiley, Chichester.
Xin-Zhong, W., Guo-Shun, L., Hong-Chao, H., Zhen-Hai, W., Qing-Hua, L., Xu-Feng, L.,
Wei-Hong, H., Yan-Tao, L., 2009. Determination of management zones for a tobacco
field based on soil fertility. Comput. Electron. Agric. 65, 168–175.
Yao, R.J., Yang, J.S., Zhang, T.J., Gao, P., Wang, X.P., Hong, L.Z., Wang, M.W., 2014.
Determination of site-specific management zones using soil physico-chemical prop-
erties and crop yields in coastal reclaimed farmland. Geoderma 232–234, 381–393.