The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Application of Vegetation Indices for Agricultural Crop Yield Prediction Using Neural Network Techniques
Open accessAbstract
Spatial variability in a crop field creates a need for precision agriculture. Economical and rapid means of identifying spatial variability is obtained through the use of geotechnology (remotely sensed images of the crop field, image processing, GIS modeling approach, and GPS usage) and data mining techniques for model development. Higher-end image processing techniques are followed to establish more precision. The goal of this paper was to investigate the strength of key spectral vegetation indices for agricultural crop yield prediction using neural network techniques. Four widely used spectral indices were investigated in a study of irrigated corn crop yields in the Oakes Irrigation Test Area research site of North Dakota, USA. These indices were: (a) red and near-infrared (NIR) based normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), (b) green and NIR based green vegetation index (GVI), (c) red and NIR based soil adjusted vegetation index (SAVI), and (d) red and NIR based perpendicular vegetation index (PVI). These four indices were investigated for corn yield during 3 years (1998, 1999, and 2001) and for the pooled data of these 3 years. Initially, Back-propagation Neural Network (BPNN) models were developed, including 16 models (4 indices * 4 years including the data from the pooled years) to test for the efficiency determination of those four vegetation indices in corn crop yield prediction. The corn yield was best predicted using BPNN models that used the means and standard deviations of PVI grid images. In all three years, it provided higher prediction accuracies, coefficient of determination (r2), and lower standard error of prediction than the models involving GVI, NDVI, and SAVI image information. The GVI, NDVI, and SAVI models for all three years provided average testing prediction accuracies of 24.26% to 94.85%, 19.36% to 95.04%, and 19.24% to 95.04%, respectively while the PVI models for all three years provided average testing prediction accuracies of 83.50% to 96.04%. The PVI pool model provided better average testing prediction accuracy of 94% with respect to other vegetation models, for which it ranged from 89–93%. Similarly, the PVI pool model provided coefficient of determination (r2) value of 0.45 as compared to 0.31–0.37 for other index models. Log10 data transformation technique was used to enhance the prediction ability of the PVI models of years 1998, 1999, and 2001 as it was chosen as the preferred index. Another model (Transformed PVI (Pool)) was developed using the log10 transformed PVI image information to show its global application. The transformed PVI models provided average corn yield prediction accuracies of 90%, 97%, and 98% for years 1998, 1999, and 2001, respectively. The pool PVI transformed model provided as average testing accuracy of 93% along with r2 value of 0.72 and standard error of prediction of 0.05 t/ha.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Neural Networks: A Comprehensive Foundation
Haykin, S. (1998) · Cited by 30,070
Data mining: concepts and techniques
(2012) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.49-3305 · Cited by 28,531
A soil-adjusted vegetation index (SAVI)
Huete, A. R. (1988) · Remote Sensing of Environment · doi:10.1016/0034-4257(88)90106-x · Cited by 7,948
Remote Sensing and Image Interpretation
Wright, J., Lillesand, T. M., & Kiefer, R. W. (1980) · The Geographical Journal · doi:10.2307/634969 · Cited by 7,238
Remote Sensing And Image Interpretation
LILLESAND, T. M., Kiefer, R. W., & Chipman, J. (1979) · HAL · Cited by 4,463
Broge, N. H., & Leblanc, E. (2001) · Remote Sensing of Environment · doi:10.1016/s0034-4257(00)00197-8 · Cited by 1,760
Comparison of broad-band and narrow-band red and near-infrared vegetation indices
Elvidge, C. D., & Chen, Z. (1995) · Remote Sensing of Environment · doi:10.1016/0034-4257(95)00132-k · Cited by 520
Chemometric Techniques for Quantitative Analysis
Kramer, R. (1998) · CRC Press eBooks · doi:10.1201/9780203909805 · Cited by 476
Preprocessing Transformations and Their Effects on Multispectral Recognition
Kriegler, F. J., Malila, W. A., Nalepka, R. F., & Richardson, W. (1969) · Cited by 420
Soil Fertility Evaluation and Control
Black, C. A. (2013) · CRC Press eBooks · doi:10.1201/b16423 · Cited by 294
Cited by
Deep learning in environmental remote sensing: Achievements and challenges
Yuan, Q., Shen, H., Li, T., Li, Z., Li, S., Jiang, Y., Xu, H., Tan, W., Yang, Q., Wang, J., et al. (2020) · Remote Sensing of Environment · doi:10.1016/j.rse.2020.111716 · Cited by 1,697
Crop yield prediction with deep convolutional neural networks
Nevavuori, P., Narra, N., & Lipping, T. (2019) · Computers and Electronics in Agriculture · doi:10.1016/j.compag.2019.104859 · Cited by 586
Satellite remote sensing of grasslands: from observation to management
Ali, I., Cawkwell, F., Dwyer, E., Barrett, B., & Green, S. (2016) · Journal of Plant Ecology · doi:10.1093/jpe/rtw005 · Cited by 411
Holman, F., Riche, A., Michalski, A., Castle, M., Wooster, M., & Hawkesford, M. (2016) · Remote Sensing · doi:10.3390/rs8121031 · Cited by 398
County-Level Soybean Yield Prediction Using Deep CNN-LSTM Model
Sun, J., Di, L., Sun, Z., Shen, Y., & Lai, Z. (2019) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s19204363 · Cited by 371
Metadata
- Authors
- Panda, S. S., Ames, D. P., & Panigrahi, S.
- Venue
- Remote Sensing
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2010-03-01
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 673-696
- ISSN
- 2072-4292 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2112674101
- Cited by
- 395
- References
- 18
- FWCI
- 5.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Application of Vegetation Indices for Agricultural Crop Yield Prediction Using Neural Network Techniques. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3390/rs2030673
- The paper
- Panda, S. S., Ames, D. P., & Panigrahi, S. (2010). Application of Vegetation Indices for Agricultural Crop Yield Prediction Using Neural Network Techniques. Remote Sensing. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs2030673
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.