4.7 Article

High resolution wheat yield mapping using Sentinel-2

Journal

REMOTE SENSING OF ENVIRONMENT
Volume 233, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.rse.2019.111410

Keywords

Yield estimation; Sentinel-2; Yield mapping; Random forest regression; Combine harvester

Funding

  1. Lancaster University through a Lancaster Environment Centre PhD Studentship as part of the Graduate School for the Environment
  2. NERC [NE/N018125/1 LTS-M]
  3. BBSRC [NE/N018125/1 LTS-M]
  4. NERC [NE/N018125/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Accurate crop yield estimates are important for governments, farmers, scientists and agribusiness. This paper provides a novel demonstration of the use of freely available Sentinel-2 data to estimate within-field wheat yield variability in a single year. The impact of data resolution and availability on yield estimation is explored using different combinations of input data. This was achieved by combining Sentinel-2 with environmental data (e.g. meteorological, topographical, soil moisture) for different periods throughout the growing season. Yield was estimated using Random Forest (RF) regression models. They were trained and validated using a dataset containing over 8000 points collected by combine harvester yield monitors from 39 wheat fields in the UK. The results demonstrate that it is possible to produce accurate maps of within-field yield variation at 10 m resolution using Sentinel-2 data (RMSE 0.66 t/ha). When combined with environmental data further improvements in accuracy can be obtained (RMSE 0.61 t/ha). We demonstrate that with knowledge of crop-type distribution it is possible to use these models, trained with data from a few fields, to estimate within-field yield variability on a landscape scale. Applying this method gives us a range of crop yield across the landscape of 4.09 to 12.22 t/ha, with a total crop production of approx. 289,000 t.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available