Figure 1.
Geographic location of study regions: Green indicate the Citrus-producing belt in northeastern Punjab (Sargodha and Mandi Bahauddin), and yellow the Mango-producing belt in southwestern Punjab (Multan, Khanewal, Rahim Yar Khan).
Figure 1.
Geographic location of study regions: Green indicate the Citrus-producing belt in northeastern Punjab (Sargodha and Mandi Bahauddin), and yellow the Mango-producing belt in southwestern Punjab (Multan, Khanewal, Rahim Yar Khan).
Figure 2.
Methodological workflow illustrating the dual components of the study: (left) fruit orchard delineation and (right) yield modeling.
Figure 2.
Methodological workflow illustrating the dual components of the study: (left) fruit orchard delineation and (right) yield modeling.
Figure 3.
Classification performance of machine learning models for orchard delineation: (a) Comparison of Overall Accuracy (OA) and Kappa coefficients for Random Forest (RF), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Gradient Boosting Decision Trees (GBDT), and the integrated RF + Object-Based Image Analysis (RF+OBIA); (b) Boxplots showing variability in classifier performance across validation samples.
Figure 3.
Classification performance of machine learning models for orchard delineation: (a) Comparison of Overall Accuracy (OA) and Kappa coefficients for Random Forest (RF), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Gradient Boosting Decision Trees (GBDT), and the integrated RF + Object-Based Image Analysis (RF+OBIA); (b) Boxplots showing variability in classifier performance across validation samples.
Figure 4.
Variable importance of Sentinel-2 spectral bands in Random Forest classification for orchard delineation. Importance values represent the mean relative decrease in accuracy for each band.
Figure 4.
Variable importance of Sentinel-2 spectral bands in Random Forest classification for orchard delineation. Importance values represent the mean relative decrease in accuracy for each band.
Figure 5.
Orchard delineation results for the citrus belt (Central Punjab). Cyan outlines represent RF classification; magenta outlines show OBIA-enhanced RF results; Cyan—magenta composite indicate Intersection-over-Union (IoU) agreement with reference boundaries.
Figure 5.
Orchard delineation results for the citrus belt (Central Punjab). Cyan outlines represent RF classification; magenta outlines show OBIA-enhanced RF results; Cyan—magenta composite indicate Intersection-over-Union (IoU) agreement with reference boundaries.
Figure 6.
Orchard delineation results for the mango belt (South Punjab). Cyan outlines represent RF classification; magenta outlines show OBIA-enhanced RF results; Cyan—magenta composite indicate Intersection-over-Union (IoU) agreement with reference boundaries.
Figure 6.
Orchard delineation results for the mango belt (South Punjab). Cyan outlines represent RF classification; magenta outlines show OBIA-enhanced RF results; Cyan—magenta composite indicate Intersection-over-Union (IoU) agreement with reference boundaries.
Figure 7.
Confusion matrix showing class-level accuracy of RF–OBIA versus baseline RF classification.
Figure 7.
Confusion matrix showing class-level accuracy of RF–OBIA versus baseline RF classification.
Figure 8.
Benchmarking of RF–OBIA classification: (a) Distribution of orchard types based on validated inventory, (b) Spatial distribution of Intersection-over-Union (IoU) scores showing agreement between classified and reference orchard boundaries.
Figure 8.
Benchmarking of RF–OBIA classification: (a) Distribution of orchard types based on validated inventory, (b) Spatial distribution of Intersection-over-Union (IoU) scores showing agreement between classified and reference orchard boundaries.
Figure 9.
Observed versus predicted fruit yield under different vegetation index aggregation strategies (mean, median, maximum, and minimum).
Figure 9.
Observed versus predicted fruit yield under different vegetation index aggregation strategies (mean, median, maximum, and minimum).
Figure 10.
Pearson correlation matrix showing relationships among vegetation indices (NDVI, SAVI, TNDVI, NDRE, RENDVI, MCARI, and NDMI) based aggregation models and field-measured fruit yield. Green, yellow and brown to red colors denote positive (strong), weak or neutral and negative correlations, respectively.
Figure 10.
Pearson correlation matrix showing relationships among vegetation indices (NDVI, SAVI, TNDVI, NDRE, RENDVI, MCARI, and NDMI) based aggregation models and field-measured fruit yield. Green, yellow and brown to red colors denote positive (strong), weak or neutral and negative correlations, respectively.
Figure 11.
Spatial distribution of predicted citrus orchards yields (kg tree−1) Central Punjab derived from regression modeling using the RF–OBIA framework.
Figure 11.
Spatial distribution of predicted citrus orchards yields (kg tree−1) Central Punjab derived from regression modeling using the RF–OBIA framework.
Figure 12.
Spatial distribution of predicted mango orchards yields (kg tree−1) in Southern Punjab derived from regression modeling using the RF–OBIA framework.
Figure 12.
Spatial distribution of predicted mango orchards yields (kg tree−1) in Southern Punjab derived from regression modeling using the RF–OBIA framework.
Figure 13.
Boxplots showing distribution of predicted orchard yields (kg tree−1) across regression models using mean, median, maximum, and minimum aggregation strategies.
Figure 13.
Boxplots showing distribution of predicted orchard yields (kg tree−1) across regression models using mean, median, maximum, and minimum aggregation strategies.
Figure 14.
Residual diagnostic plots of regression models for orchard yield prediction under different vegetation index aggregation strategies (mean, median, maximum, and minimum).
Figure 14.
Residual diagnostic plots of regression models for orchard yield prediction under different vegetation index aggregation strategies (mean, median, maximum, and minimum).
Table 1.
Agro-climatic characteristics of major orchard zones of Pakistan.
Table 1.
Agro-climatic characteristics of major orchard zones of Pakistan.
| Zone | Dominant Fruit Crop | Climate Type | Mean Annual Temperature (°C) | Annual Rainfall (mm) | Dominant Soil Type | Cropping System Characteristics |
|---|
| Central Punjab (Citrus Belt) | Kinnow mandarin (Citrus reticulata), orange, lemon | Sub-humid to semi-arid subtropical | 10–45 | 350–500 | well-drained alluvial sandy-loam | Canal-irrigated integrated with wheat–citrus–fodder rotations |
| Southern Punjab (Mango Belt) | Mango (Mangifera indica)—Chaunsa, Sindhri, Langra, Dusehri | Arid to semi-arid subtropical | 15–48 | 150–300 | Clay-loam to sandy clay-loam alluvial soils | Canal and tubewell-irrigated orchards intercropped with cotton, wheat, and fodder crops |
Table 2.
Satellite datasets used for orchard delineation and yield estimation.
Table 2.
Satellite datasets used for orchard delineation and yield estimation.
| Sensor/Platform | Spatial Resolution | Temporal Coverage | Preprocessing Steps | Purpose in Study |
|---|
| Sentinel-2 MSI (ESA, Level-2A) | 10–20 m | 2019–2024 growing seasons (multi-temporal composites) | Sen2Cor atmospheric correction, QA60 cloud masking, temporal median compositing | Orchard classification, vegetation index derivation, yield modeling |
| PRSS-1 (Pakistan Re-mote Sensing Satel-lite-1) | 0.98–2.98 m | 2022–2024 (peak fruiting stages) | Radiometric calibration to reflectance, RPC-based orthorectification using DEM and GCPs | Boundary refinement, object-based segmentation in vast orchard landscapes |
Table 3.
Descriptive statistics of field-observed yield data across agroecological zones, orchard size classes, and management regimes.
Table 3.
Descriptive statistics of field-observed yield data across agroecological zones, orchard size classes, and management regimes.
| Crop | Agro-Ecological Zone | Class | Observed Yield Range (kg tree−1) | Mean ± SD (kg tree−1) | Sample Count (n) | Description of Orchard Condition |
|---|
| Citrus | Central Punjab | A | 1500–2300 | 1675 ± 110 | 210 | Large, export-grade orchards with full canopy closure and uniform high fruit load |
| B | 1000–1480 | 1230 ± 95 | 240 | Mature, healthy orchards with dense foliage and considerable fruit load |
| C | 550–950 | 720 ± 85 | 200 | Middle-aged orchards with mixed canopy vigor and moderate fruit load |
| D | 150–500 | 340 ± 75 | 162 | Senescent orchards with sparse canopy and low fruit density |
| Mango | Southern Punjab | A | 2000–2700 | 2320 ± 135 | 180 | Large, export-grade orchards with full canopy closure and uniform high fruit load |
| B | 1500–1950 | 1700 ± 115 | 210 | Mature, vigorous orchards with dense canopy and considerable fruit load |
| C | 800–1450 | 1100 ± 120 | 185 | Middle-aged orchards with mixed canopy vigor and moderate fruit load |
| D | 170–750 | 410 ± 95 | 137 | Senescent orchards with sparse canopy and low fruit density |
Table 4.
Performance comparison of pixel-based and OBIA-enhanced classifiers for orchard delineation.
Table 4.
Performance comparison of pixel-based and OBIA-enhanced classifiers for orchard delineation.
| Classifier & Method | OA (%) | (κ) | PA (%) | UA (%) | ΔOA (%) | Δκ | IoU |
|---|
| RF (Pixel-based, Sentinel-2) | 79.0 | 0.78 | 77.5 | 80.2 | – | – | 0.71 |
| SVM (Pixel-based, Sentinel-2) | 74.5 | 0.74 | 72.8 | 75.6 | –4.5 | –0.04 | 0.68 |
| GBDT (Pixel-based, Sentinel-2) | 73.8 | 0.73 | 71.9 | 74.1 | –5.2 | –0.05 | 0.67 |
| RF—OBIA (Sentinel-2 + PRSS-1) | 92.6 | 0.89 | 90.4 | 91.5 | +13.6 | +0.11 | 0.86 |
Table 5.
Regional validation metrics for RF–OBIA classification of citrus and mango orchards across Punjab, Pakistan.
Table 5.
Regional validation metrics for RF–OBIA classification of citrus and mango orchards across Punjab, Pakistan.
| Region | Orchard Type | OA (%) | Kappa | Misclassification (%) ** | PA (%) * | UA (%) |
|---|
| Sargodha | Citrus | 92.3 | 0.89 | 7.7 | 96 | 93 |
| Mandi Bahauddin | Citrus | 91.8 | 0.88 | 8.2 | 95 | 92 |
| Multan | Mango | 93.0 | 0.90 | 7.0 | 94 | 93 |
| Khanewal | Mango | 92.6 | 0.89 | 7.4 | 94 | 92 |
| Rahim Yar Khan | Mango | 91.9 | 0.88 | 8.1 | 93 | 92 |
Table 6.
Benchmark comparison of OBIA—enhanced RF against baseline pixel-based RF classification.
Table 6.
Benchmark comparison of OBIA—enhanced RF against baseline pixel-based RF classification.
| Method | OA (%) | Kappa | Boundary Precision (%) | Temporal Noise Reduction (%) |
|---|
| RF (Pixel-based) | 79.0 | 0.78 | 65.0 | 5.0 |
| RF–OBIA | 92.6 | 0.89 | 85.3 | 15.0 |
Table 7.
Performance of regression models under different VI aggregation strategies for orchard yield prediction.
Table 7.
Performance of regression models under different VI aggregation strategies for orchard yield prediction.
| Aggregation Strategy | R2 | Adjusted R2 | RSE (kg tree−1) * |
|---|
| Mean | 0.79 | 0.77 | 72.7 |
| Median | 0.78 | 0.78 | 76.4 |
| Max | 0.55 | 0.29 | 568.8 |
| Min | 0.46 | 0.14 | 626.6 |