Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 320

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evaluating the capability of the Sentinel 2 data for soil organic carbon prediction in croplands

Open access
Castaldi, Fabio, Hueni, Andreas, Chabrillat, Sabine, Ward, Kathrin, Buttafuoco, Gabriele, Bomans, Bart, Vreys, Kristin, Brell, Maximilian, van Wesemael, Bas·2019·ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing

Abstract

Abstract The short revisit time of the Sentinel-2 (S2) constellation entails a large availability of remote sensing data, but S2 data have been rarely used to predict soil organic carbon (SOC) content. Thus, this study aims at comparing the capability of multispectral S2 and airborne hyperspectral remote sensing data for SOC prediction, and at the same time, we investigated the importance of spectral and spatial resolution through the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), the variable importance in the prediction (VIP) models and the spatial variability of the SOC maps at field and regional scales. We tested the capability of the S2 data to predict SOC in croplands with quite different soil types and parent materials in Germany, Luxembourg and Belgium, using multivariate statistics and local ground calibration with soil samples. We split the calibration dataset into sub-regions according to soil maps and built a multivariate regression model within each sub-region. The prediction accuracy obtained by S2 data is generally slightly lower than that retrieved by airborne hyperspectral data. The ratio of performance to deviation (RPD) is higher than 2 in Luxembourg (2.6) and German (2.2) site, while it is 1.1 in the Belgian area. After the spectral resampling of the airborne data according to S2 band, the prediction accuracy did not change for four out of five of the sub-regions. The variable importance values obtained by S2 data showed the same trend as the airborne VIP values, while the importance of SWIR bands decreased using airborne data resampled according the S2 bands. These differences of VIP values can be explained by the loss of spectral resolution as compared to APEX data and the strong difference in terms of SNR between the SWIR region and other spectral regions. The investigation on the spatial variability of the SOC maps derived by S2 data has shown that the spatial resolution of S2 is adequate to describe SOC variability both within field and at regional scale.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2018.11.026

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 47 references

Cited by

See all 320

Metadata

Authors
Castaldi, F., Hueni, A., Chabrillat, S., Ward, K., Buttafuoco, G., Bomans, B., Vreys, K., Brell, M., & van Wesemael, B.
Venue
ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-01
Volume
147
Pages
267-282
ISSN
0924-2716 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2905192710
Cited by
320
References
47
FWCI
9.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluating the capability of the Sentinel 2 data for soil organic carbon prediction in croplands. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2018.11.026
The paper
Castaldi, F., Hueni, A., Chabrillat, S., Ward, K., Buttafuoco, G., Bomans, B., Vreys, K., Brell, M., & van Wesemael, B. (2019). Evaluating the capability of the Sentinel 2 data for soil organic carbon prediction in croplands. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2018.11.026

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.