Identification of Cultivated Land Quality Grade Using Fused Multi-Source Data and Multi-Temporal Crop Remote Sensing Information
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Soil Sampling, Analysis, and Data Transformation
- (1)
- Soil Sampling and Analysis
- (2)
- Basic Maps and Processing
2.3. Acquisition and Processing of Remote Sensing Images and Other Thematic Data
- (1)
- Acquisition and Processing of Remote Sensing Images
- (2)
- Acquisition and Processing of Thematic Data
2.4. Methods
2.4.1. Cultivated Land Extraction Based on Remote Sensing
2.4.2. Soil Quality Evaluation Based on Geographic Information System (GIS)
2.4.3. Construction of Soil Quality Characteristic Indicators Based on P-S-R Framework
- (1)
- Production Press Indicators
- (2)
- Soil Status Indicators
- (3)
- Social Action Indicators
2.4.4. Extraction of Soil Status Indicators under Three Situations
- (1)
- No distinction between crop cover types (Method A)
- (2)
- Distinction between crop cover types (Method B)
- (3)
- Fusion of multi-temporal data types (Method C)
2.4.5. Identification of Soil Quality Grade Based on Multi-source Data
- (1)
- Acquisition of Training Samples
- (2)
- Identification of Soil Quality Grade
- (3)
- Verification of Identification Accuracy
3. Results and Analysis
3.1. The Results of Cultivated Land Information Extraction Based on Remote Sensing
3.2. The Results of Soil Quality Evaluation Based on GIS
3.3. Construction and Analysis of Soil Quality Characteristic Indicators
3.3.1. Construction Results of Soil Quality Indicators under Three Multi-Source Data Situations
3.3.2. The Analysis of PPI and SAI
3.3.3. The Construction Results of MT-SSI
3.4. Identification Results of Soil Quality Grade
3.4.1. The Analysis of Spatial Distribution Accuracy for Soil Quality Grade Identification
3.4.2. The Analysis of Area Accuracy for Soil Quality Grade Identification
3.4.3. The Analysis of Verification Points Accuracy for Soil Quality Grade Identification
4. Discussion
- (1)
- By analyzing the multi-temporal NDVI spectral curves of different crop rotation systems, we obtained the most abundant period of crop biomass, that is, the mid-April and mid-August of two-season crops and the mid-August of one-season crops. Referring to previous research experience [19,44], we used three vegetation spectral indicators (NDVI, DVI, and RVI) as soil status indicators to construct the soil quality indicator system, which indirectly realized the identification of cultivated land quality. The research shows that crop remote sensing images of several sensitive periods have obvious advantages in soil quality identification, which reflects the application potential of crop remote sensing in cultivated land quality and has important significance for soil quality prediction at a regional scale. However, the lack of relationship analysis between soil quality and multi-temporal crop spectrum is the deficiency of this study, which needs to be further optimized.
- (2)
- The soil quality grade identification method proposed in this study fuses terrain, meteorological data, remote sensing data, statistical yearbook, etc. Compared with previous studies [21,24,25], it is found that MODIS data synthesized by 16-day maximum not only reduced the influence of clouds, but also ensured the temporal and spatial continuity of earth observation data. It could more completely express the spectral characteristics of crops in each growth cycle and more accurately reflect the cultivated land quality [45,46]. At the same time, incorporating human activity factors into the soil quality identification system through agricultural statistics data can indirectly reflect the agricultural input and management level and help to improve the identification accuracy. The fusion of multi-source and multi-temporal data will be an effective means to identify the cultivated land quality grade.
- (3)
- By comparing the identification results under two situations, after distinguishing crop rotation types, the maximum area ratio error decreased from 4.84% to 2.68%, the overall accuracy of verification points increased by 6.94%, and the identification accuracy of soil quality grade was improved. It is considered that the partition of crop rotation types reduces the spectral confusion problem and enhances the purity of spectral information, thereby improving the identification accuracy [47,48]. However, the identification accuracy of soil quality based on crop rotation zoning is limited. It is necessary to further use higher resolution Sentinel or Landsat data to distinguish crop types. Accurate classification and partition identification based on crops will also be an effective way to improve the identification accuracy of soil quality.
- (4)
- By comparing the identification results between the fusion of multi-temporal data types and the other two situations, it is found that the former results are more similar to the evaluation results. Compared with only distinguishing crop rotation types, the maximum area ratio error decreased from 2.68% to 1.13%, the overall accuracy of verification points increased by 7.53%, and the identification accuracy of soil quality information was significantly improved. It is mainly due to the fusion of multi-temporal remote sensing data through principal component analysis, which makes the spectral information of soil quality more abundant, and changes from static crop state information to dynamic crop spectral characteristics. It effectively avoids the disadvantages of single-temporal image information and being susceptible to external factors, and enhances the stability of remote sensing data sources, thereby improving the identification accuracy of soil quality grade [49,50].
- (5)
- This study used the random forest algorithm to identify soil quality grades. Compared with the evaluation method based on GIS, this method does not require field sampling and indoor laboratory analysis and avoids the large consumption of human, material, and financial resources [51]. It overcomes the dependence of traditional evaluation on different spatial interpolation methods and can more objectively reflect the spatial distribution information of cultivated land quality [52]. Compared with previous studies [21,25,26], the algorithm fully excavates the nonlinear relationship between multi-source data and has the advantages of high generalization performance, strong fault tolerance and anti-interference ability, and good robustness [53]. It avoids the disadvantages of traditional linear combination methods with strong subjectivity, can fully reflect the comprehensive, random, and nonlinear characteristics of soil quality, and is proved to be an effective method for automatic identification of soil quality grade. In the future, the proposed method can be applied to the rapid interpretation of soil quality grade, assist in establishing long-term monitoring, evaluation, and early warning mechanism of cultivated land quality, and guide agricultural management according to local conditions. To avoid the degradation of cultivated land, maintain and improve the cultivated land quality, and ensure the sustainable use of cultivated land resources.
5. Conclusions
- (1)
- The NDVI time series curve of double-season crop shows a typical bimodal characteristic, with the peak in mid-April and mid-August, respectively. In comparison, the one-season crop is a unimodal curve, with the peak value in mid-August. Then, through evaluation, the cultivated land quality was divided into three categories (high, medium, and low), with six grades.
- (2)
- Three different situations were constructed to extract SSI. Synthetic images of 225–240 days were used to the no distinction between crop cover types, synthetic images of 225–240 days and 97–112 days were used to the distinction between crop cover types. Additionally, the fusion of multi-temporal data types was based on the two sensitive periods, and other highly correlated images were selected to form a multi-temporal data set. Through principal component analysis, it contains two to three principal components, and each principal component contains five to eight temporal remote sensing information.
- (3)
- Distinguishing crop rotation types has a significant gain on the identification accuracy of soil quality grade. Specifically, the spatial distribution of soil types is more similar to the evaluation results, the maximum area ratio error decreased from 4.84% to 2.68%, the overall accuracy increased from 79.18% to 86.12%, and the Kappa coefficient increased from 0.66 to 0.77.
- (4)
- Fusion of multi-temporal remote sensing data is the best method for soil quality information extraction. Specifically, the spatial distribution of soil types is more similar to the evaluation results, the maximum area ratio error decreased from 2.68% to 1.13%, the overall accuracy of verification points increased from 86.12% to 93.65%, and the Kappa coefficient increased from 0.77 to 0.90.
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Zhang, S.Y.; Hu, W.Y.; Li, M.R.; Guo, Z.X.; Wang, L.Y.; Wu, L.H. Multiscale research on spatial supply-demand mismatches and synergic strategies of multifunctional cultivated land. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 299, 113605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wu, C.S.; Liu, G.H.; Huang, C.; Liu, Q.S. Soil quality assessment in Yellow River Delta: Establishing a minimum data set and fuzzy logic model. Geoderma 2019, 334, 82–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.; Zhang, W.J.; Wu, L.; Ren, Y.; Zhang, J.D.; Xu, M.G. Advance in indicator screening and methodologies of soil quality evaluation. Sci. Agric. Sin. 2021, 54, 3043–3056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cassman, K.G.; Grassini, P. A global perspective on sustainable intensification research. Nat. Sustain. 2020, 3, 262–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Xie, H.L.; Zhang, Y.W.; Wu, Z.L.; Lv, T.G. A bibliometric analysis on land degradation: Current status, development, and future directions. Land 2020, 9, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Imaz, M.J.; Virto, I.; Bescansa, P.; Enrique, A.; Fernandez-Ugalde, O.; Karlen, D.L. Soil quality indicator response to tillage and residue management on semi-arid Mediterranean cropland. Soil Tillage Res. 2010, 107, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, P.J.; Han, D.L.; Liu, S.W.; Wen, X.; Huang, Y.X.; Jia, H.T. Soil quality assessment under different land uses in an alpine grassland. CATENA 2018, 171, 280–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ball, B.C.; Batey, T.; Munkholm, L.J. Field assessment of soil structural quality–a development of the Peerlkamp test. Soil Use Manag. 2007, 23, 329–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andrews, S.S.; Carroll, C.R. Designing a soil quality assessment tool for sustainable agroecosystem management. Ecol. Appl. 2001, 11, 1573–1585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xue, Y.J.; Liu, S.G.; Hu, Y.M.; Yang, J.F. Soil quality assessment using weighted fuzzy association rules. Pedosphere 2010, 20, 334–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nabiollahi, K.; Taghizadeh-Mehrjardi, R.; Kerry, R.; Moradian, S. Assessment of soil quality indices for salt-affected agricultural land in Kurdistan Province, Iran. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 83, 482–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weiss, M.; Jacob, F.; Duveiller, G. Remote sensing for agricultural applications: A meta-review. Remote Sens. Environ. 2020, 236, 111402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Munnaf, M.A.; Mouazen, A.M. Development of a soil fertility index using on-line Vis-NIR spectroscopy. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2021, 188, 106341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Munnaf, M.A.; Guerrero, A.; Nawar, S.; Haesaert, G.; Van Meirvenne, M.; Mouazen, A.M. A combined data mining approach for on-line prediction of key soil quality indicators by Vis-NIR spectroscopy. Soil Tillage Res. 2021, 205, 104808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paz-Kagan, T.; Zaady, E.; Salbach, C.; Schmidt, A.; Lausch, A.; Zacharias, S.; Notesco, G.; Ben-Dor, E.; Karnieli, A. Mapping the spectral soil quality index (SSQI) using airborne imaging spectroscopy. Remote Sens. 2015, 7, 15748–15781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shan, W.; Jin, X.B.; Ren, J.; Wang, Y.C.; Xu, Z.G.; Fan, Y.T.; Gu, Z.M.; Hong, C.Q.; Lin, J.H.; Zhou, Y.K. Ecological environment quality assessment based on remote sensing data for land consolidation. J. Cleaner Prod. 2019, 239, 118126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berger, A.; Ettlin, G.; Quincke, C.; Rodríguez-Bocca, P. Predicting the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) by training a crop growth model with historical data. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2019, 161, 305–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Inoue, Y.; Saito, T.; Iwasaki, A.; Nemoto, T.; Ono, T. Hyperspectral assessment of soil fertility in farm fields in Fukushima decontaminated after the radioactive fallout. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2020, 66, 820–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dedeoğlu, M.; Başayiğit, L.; Yüksel, M.; Kaya, F. Assessment of the vegetation indices on Sentinel-2A images for predicting the soil productivity potential in Bursa, Turkey. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2020, 192, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duan, D.D.; Sun, X.; Liang, S.F.; Sun, J.; Fan, L.L.; Chen, H.; Xia, L.; Zhao, F.; Yang, W.Q.; Yang, P. Spatiotemporal patterns of cultivated land quality integrated with multi-source remote sensing: A case study of Guangzhou, China. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, J.F.; Ma, J.C.; Wang, L.C. Evaluation factors for cultivated land grade identification based on multi-spectral remote sensing. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2012, 28, 230–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sciortino, M.; De Felice, M.; De Cecco, L.; Borfecchia, F. Remote sensing for monitoring and mapping land productivity in Italy: A rapid assessment methodology. CATENA 2020, 188, 104375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pullanagari, R.R.; Kereszturi, G.; Yule, I. Integrating airborne hyperspectral, topographic, and soil data for estimating pasture quality using recursive feature elimination with random forest regression. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 1117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liu, S.S.; Peng, Y.P.; Xia, Z.Q.; Hu, Y.M.; Wang, G.X.; Zhu, A.X.; Liu, Z.H. The GA-BPNN-Based evaluation of cultivated land quality in the PSR framework using Gaofen-1 satellite data. Sensors 2019, 19, 5127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Binte Mostafiz, R.; Noguchi, R.; Ahamed, T. Agricultural land suitability assessment using satellite remote sensing-derived soil-vegetation indices. Land 2021, 10, 223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, Y.Y.; Duan, W.K.; Fleskens, L.; Li, M.; Hao, J.M. Study on evaluation of regional cultivated land quality based on resource-asset-capital attributes and its spatial mechanism. Appl. Geogr. 2020, 125, 102284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shandong Yearbook Editorial Department. Yearbook of Shangdong; Shandong Yearbook Society: Jinan, China, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Peel, M.C.; Finlayson, B.L.; McMahon, T.A. Updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2007, 11, 1633–1644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- IUSS Working Group WRB. World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2014. In International Soil Classification System for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps; IUSS Working Group WRB: Rome, Italy, 2014; ISBN 9789251083697. [Google Scholar]
- Shandong Provincial Bureau of Statistics. Statistical Yearbook of Shangdong; China Statistics Press: Beijing, China, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection, Quarantine of the (AQSIQ), P.R.C., Standardization Administration of China (SAC). Cultivated Land Quality Grade (GB/T 33469-2016). 2016. Available online: https://www.chinesestandard.net/PDF/BOOK.aspx/GBT33469-2016 (accessed on 1 August 2021).
- Duan, L.X.; Li, Z.W.; Xie, H.X.; Li, Z.M.; Zhang, L.; Zhou, Q. Large-scale spatial variability of eight soil chemical properties within paddy fields. CATENA 2020, 188, 104350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, C.W.; Wang, J.H.; Wang, J.C.; Shen, Z.H. Developing indicators for sustainable campuses in Taiwan using fuzzy Delphi method and analytic hierarchy process. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 193, 661–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Rensburg, T.M.; Kelley, H.; Jeserich, N. What influences the probability of wind farm planning approval: Evidence from Ireland. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 111, 12–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van der Linden, S.; Rabe, A.; Held, M.; Jakimow, B.; Leitão, P.J.; Okujeni, A.; Schwieder, M.; Suess, S.; Hostert, P. The EnMAP-Box—A toolbox and application programming interface for EnMAP data processing. Remote Sens. 2015, 7, 11249–11266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Haidara, I.; Tahri, M.; Maanan, M.; Hakdaoui, M. Efficiency of Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process to detect soil erosion vulnerability. Geoderma 2019, 354, 113853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qi, Y.B.; Darilek, J.L.; Huang, B.; Zhao, Y.C.; Sun, W.X.; Gu, Z.Q. Evaluating soil quality indices in an agricultural region of Jiangsu Province, China. Geoderma 2009, 149, 325–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hazbavi, Z.; Sadeghi, S.H.; Gholamalifard, M.; Davudirad, A.A. Watershed health assessment using the pressure–state–response (PSR) framework. Land Degrad. Dev. 2020, 31, 3–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fang, L.N.; Song, J.P. Cultivated land quality assessment based on SPOT multispectral remote sensing image: A case study in Jimo City of Shandong Province. Progress Geogr. 2008, 5, 71–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ringnér, M. What is principal component analysis? Nat. Biotech. 2008, 26, 303–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rao, K.R.M.; Kant, Y.; Gahlaut, N.; Roy, P.S. Assessment of quality of life in Uttarakhand, India using geospatial techniques. Geocarto Int. 2012, 27, 315–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Z.P.; Shao, M.A.; Wang, Y.Q. Effect of environmental factors on regional soil organic carbon stocks across the Loess Plateau region, China. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2011, 142, 184–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, G. Estimation of a mechanisation index and its impact on production and economic factors—A case study in India. Biosyst. Eng. 2006, 93, 99–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tunçay, T.; Kılıç, Ş.; Dedeoğlu, M.; Dengiz, O.; Başkan, O.; Bayramin, İ. Assessing soil fertility index based on remote sensing and gis techniques with field validation in a semiarid agricultural ecosystem. J. Arid Environ. 2021, 190, 104525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kogan, F.; Kussul, N.; Adamenko, T.; Skakun, S.; Kravchenko, O.; Kryvobok, O.; Shelestov, A.; Kolotii, A.; Kussul, O.; Lavrenyuk, A. Winter wheat yield forecasting in Ukraine based on Earth observation, meteorological data and biophysical models. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2013, 23, 192–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Orimoloye, I.R.; Ololade, O.O.; Belle, J.A. Satellite-based application in drought disaster assessment using terra MOD13Q1 data across free state province, South Africa. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 285, 112112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Liu, T.; Yang, X.J. Mapping vegetation in an urban area with stratified classification and multiple endmember spectral mixture analysis. Remote Sens. Environ. 2013, 133, 251–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.R.; Zhang, Z.T.; Chen, J.Y.; Chen, H.Y.; Jin, J.M.; Han, J.; Wang, X.T.; Song, Z.S.; Wei, G.F. Estimating soil salinity with different fractional vegetation cover using remote sensing. Land Degrad. Dev. 2021, 32, 597–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carrão, H.; Gonçalves, P.; Caetano, M. Contribution of multispectral and multitemporal information from MODIS images to land cover classification. Remote Sens. Environ. 2008, 112, 986–997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blasch, G.; Spengler, D.; Hohmann, C.; Neumann, C.; Itzerott, S.; Kaufmann, H. Multitemporal soil pattern analysis with multispectral remote sensing data at the field-scale. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2015, 113, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- De Paul Obade, V.; Lal, R. Assessing land cover and soil quality by remote sensing and geographical information systems (GIS). CATENA 2013, 104, 77–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, C.; Zhou, Y.; Jiang, J.H.; Xiao, P.N.; Wu, H. Spatial characteristics of cultivated land quality accounting for ecological environmental condition: A case study in hilly area of northern Hubei province, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 774, 145765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Belgiu, M.; Drăguţ, L. Random forest in remote sensing: A review of applications and future directions. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2016, 114, 24–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Indicators | Expression | Reference | |
---|---|---|---|
Soil fertility indicator | NDVI | [39] | |
Soil moisture indicator | DVI | ||
Soil degradation indicator | RVI |
Indicators | Expression | Units | Reference |
---|---|---|---|
ALI | % | [30] | |
AMI | kW/ha | ||
AII | % | ||
AFI | kg NPK/ha |
Method A | Method B | Method C | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
One-Season Crop Area | Double-Season Crop Area | One-Season Crop Area | Double-Season Crop Area | |||
PPI | Slope, Annual average precipitation, Annual average temperature | |||||
SSI | Soil fertility indicator | NDVI225–240 | NDVI225–240 | NDVI097–112 | MT-NDVI225–240 | MT-NDVI097–112 |
Soil moisture indicator | DVI225–240 | DVI225–240 | DVI097–112 | MT-DVI225–240 | MT-DVI097–112 | |
Soil degradation indicator | RVI225–240 | RVI225–240 | RVI097–112 | MT-RVI225–240 | MT-RVI097–112 | |
SAI | ALI, AMI, AII, AFI |
Scheme | Indicator | Principal Component | Synthetic Period of Images | Cumulative Variance Contribution Rate | KMO | Sig. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
One- season crop area | MT-NDVI | PC1 | 177–192, 193–208, 209–224, 225–240, 241–256 | 55.33% | 0.610 | 0.000 |
PC2 | 83.49% | |||||
MT-DVI | PC1 | 177–192, 193–208, 209–224, 225–240, 241–256, 257–272 | 53.08% | 0.681 | 0.000 | |
PC2 | 82.93% | |||||
MT-RVI | PC1 | 193–208, 209–224, 225–240, 241–256, 257–272 | 55.75% | 0.607 | 0.000 | |
PC2 | 81.18% | |||||
Double- season crop area | MT-NDVI | PC1 | 065–080, 081–096, 097–112, 113–128, 129–144, 273–288, 289–304, 337–352 | 52.42% | 0.724 | 0.000 |
PC2 | 70.25% | |||||
PC3 | 83.57% | |||||
MT-DVI | PC1 | 065–080, 081–096, 097–112, 113–128, 129–144, 145–160, 177–192 | 57.11% | 0.736 | 0.000 | |
PC2 | 71.43% | |||||
MT-RVI | PC1 | 065–080, 081–096, 097–112, 113–128, 129–144, 273–288, 289–304, 337–352 | 52.33% | 0.714 | 0.000 | |
PC2 | 69.69% | |||||
PC3 | 83.50% |
Grade | Evaluation | Method A | Method B | Method C | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Area Ratio % | Area Ratio % | Difference | Area Ratio % | Difference | Area Ratio % | Difference | |||||||||
High | 1 | 47.31 | 19.13 | 52.15 | 11.52 | 4.84 | 7.61 | 48.17 | 15.16 | 0.86 | 3.97 | 47.78 | 18.64 | 0.47 | 0.49 |
2 | 28.18 | 40.63 | 12.45 | 33.01 | 4.83 | 29.14 | 0.96 | ||||||||
Medium | 3 | 37.98 | 23.43 | 37.11 | 21.33 | 0.87 | 2.10 | 39.80 | 22.03 | 1.82 | 1.40 | 36.85 | 22.60 | 1.13 | 0.83 |
4 | 14.55 | 15.78 | 1.23 | 17.77 | 3.22 | 14.25 | 0.30 | ||||||||
Low | 5 | 14.71 | 9.88 | 10.74 | 8.05 | 3.97 | 1.83 | 12.03 | 8.04 | 2.68 | 1.84 | 15.37 | 11.19 | 0.66 | 1.31 |
6 | 4.83 | 2.69 | 2.14 | 3.99 | 0.84 | 4.18 | 0.65 | ||||||||
Summation | 100.00 | 100.00 | - | 100.00 | - | 100.00 | - |
UAmean | PAmean | OA | Kappa | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Method A | 75.88% | 80.11% | 79.18% | 0.66 |
Method B | 84.14% | 86.90% | 86.12% | 0.77 |
Method C | 91.88% | 93.29% | 93.65% | 0.90 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Li, Y.; Chang, C.; Wang, Z.; Li, T.; Li, J.; Zhao, G. Identification of Cultivated Land Quality Grade Using Fused Multi-Source Data and Multi-Temporal Crop Remote Sensing Information. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 2109. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14092109
Li Y, Chang C, Wang Z, Li T, Li J, Zhao G. Identification of Cultivated Land Quality Grade Using Fused Multi-Source Data and Multi-Temporal Crop Remote Sensing Information. Remote Sensing. 2022; 14(9):2109. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14092109
Chicago/Turabian StyleLi, Yinshuai, Chunyan Chang, Zhuoran Wang, Tao Li, Jianwei Li, and Gengxing Zhao. 2022. "Identification of Cultivated Land Quality Grade Using Fused Multi-Source Data and Multi-Temporal Crop Remote Sensing Information" Remote Sensing 14, no. 9: 2109. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14092109
APA StyleLi, Y., Chang, C., Wang, Z., Li, T., Li, J., & Zhao, G. (2022). Identification of Cultivated Land Quality Grade Using Fused Multi-Source Data and Multi-Temporal Crop Remote Sensing Information. Remote Sensing, 14(9), 2109. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14092109