Comparison of missing value imputation methods for crop yield data

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Lokupitiya, Ravindra S.
dc.contributor.author Lokupitiya, Erandathie
dc.contributor.author Paustian, Keith
dc.date.accessioned 2021-06-23T08:08:48Z
dc.date.available 2021-06-23T08:08:48Z
dc.date.issued 2005
dc.identifier.uri DOI: 10.1002/env.773
dc.identifier.uri http://archive.cmb.ac.lk:8080/xmlui/handle/70130/5419
dc.description.abstract Most ecological data sets contain missing values, a fact which can cause problems in the analysis and limit the utility of resulting inference. However, ecological data also tend to be spatially correlated, which can aid in estimating and imputing missing values. We compared four existing methods of estimating missing values: regression, kernel smoothing, universal kriging, and multiple imputation. Data on crop yields from the National Agricultural Statistical Survey (NASS) and the Census of Agriculture (Ag Census) were the basis for our analysis.Our goal was to find the best method to impute missing values in the NASS datasets. For this comparison, we selected the NASS data for barley crop yield in 1997 as our reference dataset. We found in this case that multiple imputation and regression were superior to methods based on spatial correlation. Universal kriging was found to be the third best method. Kernel smoothing seemed to perform very poorly. Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons,Ltd. en_US
dc.language.iso en en_US
dc.publisher Wiley InterScience en_US
dc.subject missing values en_US
dc.subject regression en_US
dc.subject kriging en_US
dc.subject kernel smoothing en_US
dc.subject multiple imputation en_US
dc.title Comparison of missing value imputation methods for crop yield data en_US
dc.type Article en_US


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search DSpace


Advanced Search

Browse

My Account