Cited by 540Remote Sensing in AgricultureSmart Agriculture and AIRemote-Sensing Image Classification

A high-performance and in-season classification system of field-level crop types using time-series Landsat data and a machine learning approach

Open access
Cai, Yaping, Guan, Kaiyu, Peng, Jian, Wang, Shaowen, Seifert, Christopher, Wardlow, Brian, Li, Zhan·2018·Remote Sensing of Environment

Abstract

Accurate and timely spatial classification of crop types based on remote sensing data is important for both scientific and practical purposes. Spatially explicit crop-type information can be used to estimate crop areas for a variety of monitoring and decision-making applications such as crop insurance, land rental, supply-chain logistics, and financial market forecasting. However, there is no publically available spatially explicit in-season crop-type classification information for the U.S. Corn Belt (a landscape predominated by corn and soybean). Instead, researchers and decision-makers have to wait until four to six months after harvest to have such information from the previous year. The state-of-the-art research on crop-type classification has been shifted from relying on only spectral features of single static images to combining together spectral and time-series information. While Landsat data have a desirable spatial resolution for field-level crop-type classification, the ability to extract temporal phenology information based on Landsat data remains a challenge due to low temporal revisiting frequency and inevitable cloud contamination. To address this challenge and generate accurate, cost-effective, and in-season crop-type classification, this research uses the USDA's Common Land Units (CLUs) to aggregate spectral information for each field based on a time-series Landsat image data stack to largely overcome the cloud contamination issue while exploiting a machine learning model based on Deep Neural Network (DNN) and high-performance computing for intelligent and scalable computation of classification processes. Experiments were designed to evaluate what information is most useful for training the machine learning model for crop-type classification, and how various spatial and temporal factors affect the crop-type classification performance in order to derive timely crop type information. All experiments were conducted over Champaign County located in central Illinois, and a total of 1322 Landsat multi-temporal scenes including all the six optical spectral bands spanning from 2000 to 2015 were used. Computational experiments show the inclusion of temporal phenology information and evenly distributed spatial training samples in the study domain improves classification performance. The shortwave infrared bands show notably better performance than the widely used visible and near-infrared bands for classifying corn and soybean. In comparison with USDA's Crop Data Layer (CDL), this study found a relatively high Overall Accuracy (i.e. the number of the corrected classified fields divided by the number of the total fields) of 96% for classifying corn and soybean across all CLU fields in the Champaign County from 2000 to 2015. Furthermore, our approach achieved 95% Overall Accuracy by late July of the concurrent year for classifying corn and soybean. The findings suggest the methodology presented in this paper is promising for accurate, cost-effective, and in-season classification of field-level crop types, which may be scaled up to large geographic extents such as the U.S. Corn Belt.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.rse.2018.02.045

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The method of training a DCNN based on spectral differences between images acquired by UAVs from different angles is similar to the idea of training a DNN through time series information.

    “This method is similar to the idea concerning training the DNN model through time series information (Cai et al., 2018).”

    From Deep learning in remote sensing applications: A meta-analysis and review (2019) · cites this paper as Cai et al., 2018

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cai, Y., Guan, K., Peng, J., Wang, S., Seifert, C., Wardlow, B., & Li, Z.
Affiliations
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
  • University of Nebraska–Lincoln (US)
  • University of Massachusetts Boston (US)
Corresponding author
  • Guan, Kaiyu
  • Peng, Jian
Venue
Remote Sensing of Environment
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-06
Volume
210
Pages
35-47
ISSN
0034-4257 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2791592925
Cited by
540
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 42 · 2025: 63 · 2024: 95 · 2023: 67 · 2022: 91 · 2021: 76 · 2020: 59 · 2019: 40 · 2018: 6
FWCI
34.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Remote Sensing of Environment (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration (80NSSC18K0170, NNX16AI56G)
  • National Science Foundation (0725070, 1429699, 1238993)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Remote Sensing in Agriculture
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Smart Agriculture and AI
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Media Technology › Remote-Sensing Image Classification
Keywords
crop classification, maize, soybean, crop phenology, shortwave infrared bands, cloud contamination, Corn Belt, Champaign County, Illinois, deep neural network, high-performance computing, crop area estimation, crop insurance, land lease, supply chain logistics, financial market forecasting

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