4.7 Article

Scalable Parcel-Based Crop Identification Scheme Using Sentinel-2 Data Time-Series for the Monitoring of the Common Agricultural Policy

期刊

REMOTE SENSING
卷 10, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/rs10060911

关键词

crop identification; support vector machines; random forest; common agricultural policy; Sentinel-2 MSI; Landsat-8 OLI; feature importance; multispectral image time-series

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This work investigates a Sentinel-2 based crop identification methodology for the monitoring of the Common Agricultural Policy's (CAP) Cross Compliance (CC) and Greening obligations. In this regard, we implemented and evaluated a parcel-based supervised classification scheme to produce accurate crop type mapping in a smallholder agricultural zone in Navarra, Spain. The scheme makes use of supervised classifiers Support Vector Machines (SVMs) and Random Forest (RF) to discriminate among the various crop types, based on a large variable space of Sentinel-2 imagery and Vegetation Index (VI) time-series. The classifiers are separately applied at three different levels of crop nomenclature hierarchy, comparing their performance with respect to accuracy and execution time. SVM provides optimal performance and proves significantly superior to RF for the lowest level of the nomenclature, resulting in 0.87 Cohen's kappa coefficient. Experiments were carried out to assess the importance of input variables, where top contributors are the Near Infrared (NIR), vegetation red-edge, and Short-Wave Infrared (SWIR) multispectral bands, and the Normalized Difference Vegetation (NDVI) and Plant Senescence Reflectance (PSRI) indices, sensed during advanced crop phenology stages. The scheme is finally applied to a Lansat-8 OLI based equivalent variable space, offering 0.70 Cohen's kappa coefficient for the SVM classification, highlighting the superior performance of Sentinel-2 for this type of application. This is credited to Sentinel-2's spatial, spectral, and temporal characteristics.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据