Next Article in Journal
An Integrated Strategy of Nitrogen Reduction, Microbial Amendment, and Straw Incorporation Mitigates Soil Degradation and Enhances Cucumber Yield in Northern Chinese Greenhouses
Previous Article in Journal
Wear Calculation Method of Tripping Mechanism of Knotter Based on Rigid–Flexible Coupling Dynamic Model
Previous Article in Special Issue
Machine Learning (AutoML)-Driven Wheat Yield Prediction for European Varieties: Enhanced Accuracy Using Multispectral UAV Data
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Editorial

Applications of Remote Sensing in Agricultural Soil and Crop Mapping

1
Hydrology and Remote Sensing Laboratory, USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Beltsville, MD 20705, USA
2
Center for Spatial Information Science and Systems, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2025, 15(21), 2230; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15212230
Submission received: 24 September 2025 / Revised: 12 October 2025 / Accepted: 21 October 2025 / Published: 25 October 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Applications of Remote Sensing in Agricultural Soil and Crop Mapping)
Agricultural soils and crops form the foundation of global food systems, and their sustainable management is essential for ensuring food security, mitigating climate change, and adapting to environmental pressures [1]. Recent advances in remote sensing and geospatial analytics provide powerful opportunities to monitor soils and crops across scales—from field-level UAV surveys to continental assessments using satellite constellations [2,3,4,5]. This Special Issue, “Applications of Remote Sensing in Agricultural Soil and Crop Mapping”, brings together 11 research contributions that advance methods and applications of optical, radar, and UAV-based sensing for yield estimation [6,7,8,9], cropland monitoring [10,11,12,13], soil property mapping [14,15], and land use change assessment [16], as summarized below and in Table 1.
Collectively, these papers demonstrate how multi-source data fusion, advanced machine learning (ML), deep learning (DL) models, and innovative sampling or adaptation strategies can push forward the frontier of agricultural monitoring. At the same time, they highlight ongoing challenges, such as class imbalance, cloud interference, computational scalability, and model transferability across regions. The papers in this Special Issue have been systematized into three coherent thematic blocks, presented below:
  • Advances in Crop Yield Estimation: Several contributions in this Special Issue focus on improving yield prediction through remote sensing and ML (Contribution 1–4 [6,7,8,9]). Contribution 1, by Cunha et al. [6], integrated optical and synthetic aperture radar (SAR) data, testing different SAR variables, speckle filters, and soybean growth stages. The findings show that although SAR variables alone had weak correlations with yield, their combination with optical indices (EVI) significantly improved predictions, especially at the maturation stage, reducing the root mean square error (RMSE). Similarly, in Contribution 2, from Fan et al. [7], a model for rice yield estimation in hilly and mountainous Chongqing, China, was developed, demonstrating that vegetation indices integrated over growth stages, together with agro-meteorological data and Random Forest algorithms, can achieve a high predictive accuracy (R2 ≈ 0.85). At the UAV scale, in Contribution 3, Kešelj et al. [8] used multispectral UAV imagery and automated ML (AutoML) approaches to predict wheat yield across European varieties and management treatments. Their AutoML-driven framework identified support vector regression as a top-performing model, achieving an R2 above 0.9 in the early growth stages, highlighting the potential of UAVs for precision agriculture and experimental crop research. In Brazil, in Contribution 4, Martins et al. [9] tested deep learning segmentation of UAV imagery for corn crop analysis, including detection of animal damage. Their results show that architectures such as SegFormer [17] and DeepLabV3+ [18] can reliably identify crop and non-crop areas, supporting field-scale management. Together, these studies highlight a strong trend toward phenology-aware modeling and data fusion (optical + SAR, UAV + field data), confirming that no single sensor is sufficient for robust yield estimation under all conditions.
  • Cropland Mapping and Classification Innovations: Another set of papers tackles the challenge of accurate crop type and cropland boundary mapping, particularly in complex or fragmented landscapes (Contribution 5–9 [10,11,12,13,16]). In Contribution 5, by Lu et al. [10], a hybrid method combining edge detection and semantic segmentation with geographic stratification is proposed. Applied in mountainous Chongqing, their approach achieved ~95% accuracy across flat, terraced, and sloping farmland, outperforming traditional methods. Addressing class imbalance in UAV imagery, in Contribution 6, Cheng et al. [11] developed a Minority Enhanced Sampler (MES) that augments minority crop classes and improves segmentation models. Tested across datasets, MES significantly boosted the mean intersection-over-union (mIoU) for underrepresented crops. Similarly, in Contribution 7, Cao et al. [12] advanced weed detection in tea gardens using an improved U-Net with skeleton refinement for precise weed localization, achieving substantial improvements in the mean IoU and localization accuracy. At larger scales, in Contribution 8, Hu et al. [16] examined paddy field changes in Northeast China (2000–2020) using MODIS time-series and decision tree modeling. They found a marked northeastward expansion of paddy fields (~292 km), driven largely by climate warming, with climate scenarios (CMIP6) predicting continued expansion. This illustrates how remote sensing combined with climate modeling can support strategic planning for future food security. Finally, in Contribution 9, Guo et al. [13] explored cross-domain classification with compact polarimetric SAR (CP-SAR), proposing a Gini coefficient-based unsupervised domain adaptation framework. Their method improved classification accuracy by up to 12% compared to existing UDA approaches, showing potential for crop mapping in regions with scarce labeled data.
  • Soil Properties and Environmental Fluxes: Beyond crop monitoring, two contributions extend remote sensing applications to soil and environmental variables (Contribution 10 and 11 [14,15]). In Contribution 10, Zhao et al. [14] reconstructed soil moisture over the contiguous United States by applying Empirical Orthogonal Functions interpolation (DINEOF) [19] to SMAP data, validated against in situ stations. Their approach effectively filled data gaps, achieving an R2 > 0.65 and MAE of 0.01–0.04 m3/m3, thus improving temporal continuity in soil moisture monitoring. In Contribution 11, Yu et al. [15] combined multi-source optical data, XGBoost, and SHAP interpretability analysis to map soil CO2 fluxes in the Yellow River Delta. Their framework achieved an R2 ≈ 0.73 and identified key drivers such as vegetation indices and soil texture, providing insights into carbon dynamics in intensively cultivated farmland.
The 11 contributions in this Special Issue illustrate how remote sensing can bridge agronomy and climate science, monitoring soil–plant–atmosphere exchanges that underpin both productivity and sustainability.
The Special Issue showcases cutting-edge applications of remote sensing in soil and crop mapping, from UAV-based yield prediction to SAR-enhanced classification, soil moisture reconstruction, and climate-driven paddy expansion. Together, these contributions demonstrate the transformative potential of combining multi-source remote sensing with advanced ML/DL for sustainable agricultural monitoring. We hope that the insights presented here will inspire further cross-disciplinary research, bridge geospatial science, agronomy, and sustainability, and ultimately contribute to resilient global food systems.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Amundson, R.; Berhe, A.A.; Hopmans, J.W.; Olson, C.; Sztein, A.E.; Sparks, D.L. Soil and human security in the 21st century. Science 2015, 348, 1261071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Reyes, J.; Wiedemann, W.; Brand, A.; Franke, J.; Ließ, M. Predictive monitoring of soil organic carbon using multispectral UAV imagery: A case study on a long-term experimental field. Spat. Inf. Res. 2024, 32, 683–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Allu, A.R.; Mesapam, S. Fusion of Satellite and UAV Imagery for Crop Monitoring. ISPRS Ann. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2025, X-G-2025, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lewis, P.E.; Yin, F.; Gómez-Dans, J.L.; Weiß, T.; Adam, E. Crop Yield Mapping with ARC using only Optical Remote Sensing. ISPRS Ann. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2024, X-3-2024, 199–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Zhang, C.; Kerner, H.; Wang, S.; Hao, P.; Li, Z.; Hunt, K.A.; Abernethy, J.; Zhao, H.; Gao, F.; Di, L. Remote sensing for crop mapping: A perspective on current and future crop-specific land cover data products. Remote Sens. Environ. 2025, 330, 114995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Cunha, I.A.; Baptista, G.M.M.; Prudente, V.H.R.; Melo, D.D.; Amaral, L.R. Integration of Optical and Synthetic Aperture Radar Data with Different Synthetic Aperture Radar Image Processing Techniques and Development Stages to Improve Soybean Yield Prediction. Agriculture 2024, 14, 2032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Fan, L.; Fang, S.; Fan, J.; Wang, Y.; Zhan, L.; He, Y. Rice Yield Estimation Using Machine Learning and Feature Selection in Hilly and Mountainous Chongqing, China. Agriculture 2024, 14, 1615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kešelj, K.; Stamenković, Z.; Kostić, M.; Aćin, V.; Tekić, D.; Novaković, T.; Ivanišević, M.; Ivezić, A.; Magazin, N. Machine Learning (AutoML)-Driven Wheat Yield Prediction for European Varieties: Enhanced Accuracy Using Multispectral UAV Data. Agriculture 2025, 15, 1534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Martins, J.A.C.; Hisano Higuti, A.Y.; Pellegrin, A.O.; Juliano, R.S.; de Araújo, A.M.; Pellegrin, L.A.; Liesenberg, V.; Ramos, A.P.M.; Gonçalves, W.N.; Sant’Ana, D.A.; et al. Assessment of UAV-Based Deep Learning for Corn Crop Analysis in Midwest Brazil. Agriculture 2024, 14, 2029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lu, Y.; Li, L.; Dong, W.; Zheng, Y.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, J.; Wu, T.; Liu, M. A Method for Cropland Layer Extraction in Complex Scenes Integrating Edge Features and Semantic Segmentation. Agriculture 2024, 14, 1553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Cheng, J.; Huang, L.; Tang, B.; Wu, Q.; Wang, M.; Zhang, Z. A Minority Sample Enhanced Sampler for Crop Classification in Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Remote Sensing Images with Class Imbalance. Agriculture 2025, 15, 388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Cao, Z.; Zhang, S.; Li, C.; Feng, W.; Wang, B.; Wang, H.; Luo, L.; Zhao, H. Research on Precise Segmentation and Center Localization of Weeds in Tea Gardens Based on an Improved U-Net Model and Skeleton Refinement Algorithm. Agriculture 2025, 15, 521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Guo, X.; Yin, J.; Li, K.; Yang, J. Gini Coefficient-Based Feature Learning for Unsupervised Cross-Domain Classification with Compact Polarimetric SAR Data. Agriculture 2024, 14, 1511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Zhao, H.; Zhao, H.; Zhang, C. Validating Data Interpolation Empirical Orthogonal Functions Interpolated Soil Moisture Data in the Contiguous United States. Agriculture 2025, 15, 1212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Yu, W.; Chen, S.; Yang, W.; Song, Y.; Lu, M. Spatial Mapping of Soil CO2 Flux in the Yellow River Delta Farmland of China Using Multi-Source Optical Remote Sensing Data. Agriculture 2024, 14, 1453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Hu, X.; Xu, Y.; Huang, P.; Yuan, D.; Song, C.; Wang, Y.; Cui, Y.; Luo, Y. Identifying Changes and Their Drivers in Paddy Fields of Northeast China: Past and Future. Agriculture 2024, 14, 1956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Xie, E.; Wang, W.; Yu, Z.; Anandkumar, A.; Alvarez, J.M.; Luo, P. SegFormer: Simple and efficient design for semantic segmentation with transformers. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 2021, 34, 12077–12090. [Google Scholar]
  18. Chen, L.-C.; Zhu, Y.; Papandreou, G.; Schroff, F.; Adam, H. Encoder-decoder with atrous separable convolution for semantic image segmentation. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), Munich, Germany, 8–14 September 2018; pp. 801–818. [Google Scholar]
  19. Zhao, H.; Matsuoka, A.; Manizza, M.; Winter, A. DINEOF Interpolation of Global Ocean Color Data: Error Analysis and Masking. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 2024, 41, 953–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Summary of research contributions.
Table 1. Summary of research contributions.
#Focus AreaFirst Author [REF]Data/MethodsKey Contribution
1Soybean yield predictionCunha et al. [6] Sentinel-2 optical + Sentinel-1 SAR; Random Forest; growth-stage stratificationSAR + optical fusion reduced RMSE vs. optical-only, best performance at maturation stage.
2Rice yield estimationFan et al. [7] Sentinel-2 vegetation indices + agro-meteorological data; feature selection; ML modelsGrowth-stage integrated indices + RF achieved strong rice yield predictions (R2 ≈ 0.85).
3Wheat yield predictionKešelj et al. [8] UAV multispectral imagery; AutoML (PyCaret)High-accuracy (R2 > 0.9) wheat yield prediction across varieties and treatments.
4Corn crop analysisMartins et al. [9] UAV imagery; DL architectures (DeepLabV3+, SegFormer)Reliable corn segmentation (IoU~70–80%); useful for precision management and damage detection.
5Cropland mappingLu et al. [10] Geographic zoning + semantic segmentation + edge detectionHigh cropland mapping accuracy (~95%) in mountainous terrain with complex landforms.
6Crop classificationCheng et al. [11] UAV imagery; Minority Enhanced Sampler (MES) + augmentation; tested with DL networksImproved mIoU on minority crop classes under severe class imbalance.
7Weed detectionCao et al. [12] UAV/ground imagery; improved U-Net + ASPP + skeleton refinementImproved weed segmentation and precise center localization for targeted weeding.
8Land use changeHu et al. [16] MODIS time series (2000–2020); decision tree classification; CMIP6 climate projectionsPaddy fields expanded NE by ~292 km; main climate warming driver; future scenarios project continued expansion.
9Cross-domain classificationGuo et al. [13] Compact polarimetric SAR; Gini-based feature selection; UDAImproved classification (2–12% gains) under domain shift; enables transfer across regions.
10Soil moisture monitoringZhao et al. [14] SMAP soil moisture; DINEOF (EOF interpolation); in situ validationFilled SMAP gaps and improved temporal continuity (R2 > 0.65 vs. in situ data).
11Soil CO2 flux mappingYu et al. [15] Multi-source optical indices + soil variables; XGBoost + SHAPSpatial CO2 flux mapping (R2 ≈ 0.73); vegetation indices and soil texture identified as main drivers.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhao, H.; Zhang, C. Applications of Remote Sensing in Agricultural Soil and Crop Mapping. Agriculture 2025, 15, 2230. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15212230

AMA Style

Zhao H, Zhang C. Applications of Remote Sensing in Agricultural Soil and Crop Mapping. Agriculture. 2025; 15(21):2230. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15212230

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhao, Haoteng, and Chen Zhang. 2025. "Applications of Remote Sensing in Agricultural Soil and Crop Mapping" Agriculture 15, no. 21: 2230. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15212230

APA Style

Zhao, H., & Zhang, C. (2025). Applications of Remote Sensing in Agricultural Soil and Crop Mapping. Agriculture, 15(21), 2230. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15212230

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop