A comparison between support vector machine and water Cloud model for estimating crop leaf area index

The water cloud model (WCM) can be inverted to estimate leaf area index (LAI) using the intensity of backscatter from synthetic aperture radar (SAR) sensors. Published studies have demonstrated that the WCM can accurately estimate LAI if the model is effectively calibrated. However, calibration of this model requires access to field measures of LAI as well as soil moisture. In contrast, machine learning (ML) algorithms can be trained to estimate LAI from satellite data, even if field moisture measures are not available. In this study, a support vector machine (SVM) was trained to estimate the LAI for corn, soybeans, rice, and wheat crops. These results were compared to LAI estimates from the WCM. To complete this comparison, in situ and satellite data were collected from seven Joint Experiment for Crop Assessment and Monitoring (JECAM) sites located in Argentina, Canada, Germany, India, Poland, Ukraine and the United States of America (U.S.A.). The models used C-Band backscatter intensity for two polarizations (like-polarization (VV) and cross-polarization (VH)) acquired by the RADARSAT-2 and Sentinel-1 SAR satellites. Both the WCM and SVM models performed well in estimating the LAI of corn. For the SVM, the correlation (R) between estimated LAI for corn and LAI measured in situ was reported as 0.93, with a root mean square error (RMSE) of 0.64 m2m−2 and mean absolute error (MAE) of 0.51 m2m−2 . The WCM produced an R-value of 0.89, with only slightly higher errors (RMSE of 0.75 m2m−2 and MAE of 0.61 m2m−2 ) when estimating corn LAI. For rice, only the SVM model was tested, given the lack of soil moisture measures for this crop. In this case, both high correlations and low errors were observed in estimating the LAI of rice using SVM (R of 0.96, RMSE of 0.41 m2m−2 and MAE of 0.30 m2m−2 ). However, the results demonstrated that when the calibration points were limited (in this case for soybeans), the WCM outperformed the SVM model. This study demonstrates the importance of testing different modeling approaches over diverse agro-ecosystems to increase confidence in model performance.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Hosseini, Mehdi, McNairn, Heather, Mitchell, Scott, Robertson, Laura Dingle, Davidson, Andrew, Ahmadian, Nima, Bhattacharya, Avik, Borg, Erik, Conrad, Christopher, Dabrowska Zielinska, Katarzyna, De Abelleyra, Diego, Gurdak, Radoslaw, Kumar, Vineet, Kussul, Nataliia, Mandal, Dipankar, Rao, Y.S., Saliendra, Nicanor, Shelestov, Andrii, Spengler, Daniel, Veron, Santiago Ramón, Homayouni, Saeid, Becker Reshef, Inbal
Format: info:ar-repo/semantics/artículo biblioteca
Language:eng
Published: MDPI 2021-04-01
Subjects:Leaf Area Index, Remote Sensing, Índice de Superficie Foliar, Teledetección, RADARSAT-2, Sentinel-1, Modelo de Nube de Agua, Aprendizaje Automático, Water Cloud Model, Machine Learning,
Online Access:http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/13284
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/13/7/1348
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13071348
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
id oai:localhost:20.500.12123-13284
record_format koha
institution INTA AR
collection DSpace
country Argentina
countrycode AR
component Bibliográfico
access En linea
databasecode dig-inta-ar
tag biblioteca
region America del Sur
libraryname Biblioteca Central del INTA Argentina
language eng
topic Leaf Area Index
Remote Sensing
Índice de Superficie Foliar
Teledetección
RADARSAT-2
Sentinel-1
Modelo de Nube de Agua
Aprendizaje Automático
Water Cloud Model
Machine Learning
Leaf Area Index
Remote Sensing
Índice de Superficie Foliar
Teledetección
RADARSAT-2
Sentinel-1
Modelo de Nube de Agua
Aprendizaje Automático
Water Cloud Model
Machine Learning
spellingShingle Leaf Area Index
Remote Sensing
Índice de Superficie Foliar
Teledetección
RADARSAT-2
Sentinel-1
Modelo de Nube de Agua
Aprendizaje Automático
Water Cloud Model
Machine Learning
Leaf Area Index
Remote Sensing
Índice de Superficie Foliar
Teledetección
RADARSAT-2
Sentinel-1
Modelo de Nube de Agua
Aprendizaje Automático
Water Cloud Model
Machine Learning
Hosseini, Mehdi
McNairn, Heather
Mitchell, Scott
Robertson, Laura Dingle
Davidson, Andrew
Ahmadian, Nima
Bhattacharya, Avik
Borg, Erik
Conrad, Christopher
Dabrowska Zielinska, Katarzyna
De Abelleyra, Diego
Gurdak, Radoslaw
Kumar, Vineet
Kussul, Nataliia
Mandal, Dipankar
Rao, Y.S.
Saliendra, Nicanor
Shelestov, Andrii
Spengler, Daniel
Veron, Santiago Ramón
Homayouni, Saeid
Becker Reshef, Inbal
A comparison between support vector machine and water Cloud model for estimating crop leaf area index
description The water cloud model (WCM) can be inverted to estimate leaf area index (LAI) using the intensity of backscatter from synthetic aperture radar (SAR) sensors. Published studies have demonstrated that the WCM can accurately estimate LAI if the model is effectively calibrated. However, calibration of this model requires access to field measures of LAI as well as soil moisture. In contrast, machine learning (ML) algorithms can be trained to estimate LAI from satellite data, even if field moisture measures are not available. In this study, a support vector machine (SVM) was trained to estimate the LAI for corn, soybeans, rice, and wheat crops. These results were compared to LAI estimates from the WCM. To complete this comparison, in situ and satellite data were collected from seven Joint Experiment for Crop Assessment and Monitoring (JECAM) sites located in Argentina, Canada, Germany, India, Poland, Ukraine and the United States of America (U.S.A.). The models used C-Band backscatter intensity for two polarizations (like-polarization (VV) and cross-polarization (VH)) acquired by the RADARSAT-2 and Sentinel-1 SAR satellites. Both the WCM and SVM models performed well in estimating the LAI of corn. For the SVM, the correlation (R) between estimated LAI for corn and LAI measured in situ was reported as 0.93, with a root mean square error (RMSE) of 0.64 m2m−2 and mean absolute error (MAE) of 0.51 m2m−2 . The WCM produced an R-value of 0.89, with only slightly higher errors (RMSE of 0.75 m2m−2 and MAE of 0.61 m2m−2 ) when estimating corn LAI. For rice, only the SVM model was tested, given the lack of soil moisture measures for this crop. In this case, both high correlations and low errors were observed in estimating the LAI of rice using SVM (R of 0.96, RMSE of 0.41 m2m−2 and MAE of 0.30 m2m−2 ). However, the results demonstrated that when the calibration points were limited (in this case for soybeans), the WCM outperformed the SVM model. This study demonstrates the importance of testing different modeling approaches over diverse agro-ecosystems to increase confidence in model performance.
format info:ar-repo/semantics/artículo
topic_facet Leaf Area Index
Remote Sensing
Índice de Superficie Foliar
Teledetección
RADARSAT-2
Sentinel-1
Modelo de Nube de Agua
Aprendizaje Automático
Water Cloud Model
Machine Learning
author Hosseini, Mehdi
McNairn, Heather
Mitchell, Scott
Robertson, Laura Dingle
Davidson, Andrew
Ahmadian, Nima
Bhattacharya, Avik
Borg, Erik
Conrad, Christopher
Dabrowska Zielinska, Katarzyna
De Abelleyra, Diego
Gurdak, Radoslaw
Kumar, Vineet
Kussul, Nataliia
Mandal, Dipankar
Rao, Y.S.
Saliendra, Nicanor
Shelestov, Andrii
Spengler, Daniel
Veron, Santiago Ramón
Homayouni, Saeid
Becker Reshef, Inbal
author_facet Hosseini, Mehdi
McNairn, Heather
Mitchell, Scott
Robertson, Laura Dingle
Davidson, Andrew
Ahmadian, Nima
Bhattacharya, Avik
Borg, Erik
Conrad, Christopher
Dabrowska Zielinska, Katarzyna
De Abelleyra, Diego
Gurdak, Radoslaw
Kumar, Vineet
Kussul, Nataliia
Mandal, Dipankar
Rao, Y.S.
Saliendra, Nicanor
Shelestov, Andrii
Spengler, Daniel
Veron, Santiago Ramón
Homayouni, Saeid
Becker Reshef, Inbal
author_sort Hosseini, Mehdi
title A comparison between support vector machine and water Cloud model for estimating crop leaf area index
title_short A comparison between support vector machine and water Cloud model for estimating crop leaf area index
title_full A comparison between support vector machine and water Cloud model for estimating crop leaf area index
title_fullStr A comparison between support vector machine and water Cloud model for estimating crop leaf area index
title_full_unstemmed A comparison between support vector machine and water Cloud model for estimating crop leaf area index
title_sort comparison between support vector machine and water cloud model for estimating crop leaf area index
publisher MDPI
publishDate 2021-04-01
url http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/13284
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/13/7/1348
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13071348
work_keys_str_mv AT hosseinimehdi acomparisonbetweensupportvectormachineandwatercloudmodelforestimatingcropleafareaindex
AT mcnairnheather acomparisonbetweensupportvectormachineandwatercloudmodelforestimatingcropleafareaindex
AT mitchellscott acomparisonbetweensupportvectormachineandwatercloudmodelforestimatingcropleafareaindex
AT robertsonlauradingle acomparisonbetweensupportvectormachineandwatercloudmodelforestimatingcropleafareaindex
AT davidsonandrew acomparisonbetweensupportvectormachineandwatercloudmodelforestimatingcropleafareaindex
AT ahmadiannima acomparisonbetweensupportvectormachineandwatercloudmodelforestimatingcropleafareaindex
AT bhattacharyaavik acomparisonbetweensupportvectormachineandwatercloudmodelforestimatingcropleafareaindex
AT borgerik acomparisonbetweensupportvectormachineandwatercloudmodelforestimatingcropleafareaindex
AT conradchristopher acomparisonbetweensupportvectormachineandwatercloudmodelforestimatingcropleafareaindex
AT dabrowskazielinskakatarzyna acomparisonbetweensupportvectormachineandwatercloudmodelforestimatingcropleafareaindex
AT deabelleyradiego acomparisonbetweensupportvectormachineandwatercloudmodelforestimatingcropleafareaindex
AT gurdakradoslaw acomparisonbetweensupportvectormachineandwatercloudmodelforestimatingcropleafareaindex
AT kumarvineet acomparisonbetweensupportvectormachineandwatercloudmodelforestimatingcropleafareaindex
AT kussulnataliia acomparisonbetweensupportvectormachineandwatercloudmodelforestimatingcropleafareaindex
AT mandaldipankar acomparisonbetweensupportvectormachineandwatercloudmodelforestimatingcropleafareaindex
AT raoys acomparisonbetweensupportvectormachineandwatercloudmodelforestimatingcropleafareaindex
AT saliendranicanor acomparisonbetweensupportvectormachineandwatercloudmodelforestimatingcropleafareaindex
AT shelestovandrii acomparisonbetweensupportvectormachineandwatercloudmodelforestimatingcropleafareaindex
AT spenglerdaniel acomparisonbetweensupportvectormachineandwatercloudmodelforestimatingcropleafareaindex
AT veronsantiagoramon acomparisonbetweensupportvectormachineandwatercloudmodelforestimatingcropleafareaindex
AT homayounisaeid acomparisonbetweensupportvectormachineandwatercloudmodelforestimatingcropleafareaindex
AT beckerreshefinbal acomparisonbetweensupportvectormachineandwatercloudmodelforestimatingcropleafareaindex
AT hosseinimehdi comparisonbetweensupportvectormachineandwatercloudmodelforestimatingcropleafareaindex
AT mcnairnheather comparisonbetweensupportvectormachineandwatercloudmodelforestimatingcropleafareaindex
AT mitchellscott comparisonbetweensupportvectormachineandwatercloudmodelforestimatingcropleafareaindex
AT robertsonlauradingle comparisonbetweensupportvectormachineandwatercloudmodelforestimatingcropleafareaindex
AT davidsonandrew comparisonbetweensupportvectormachineandwatercloudmodelforestimatingcropleafareaindex
AT ahmadiannima comparisonbetweensupportvectormachineandwatercloudmodelforestimatingcropleafareaindex
AT bhattacharyaavik comparisonbetweensupportvectormachineandwatercloudmodelforestimatingcropleafareaindex
AT borgerik comparisonbetweensupportvectormachineandwatercloudmodelforestimatingcropleafareaindex
AT conradchristopher comparisonbetweensupportvectormachineandwatercloudmodelforestimatingcropleafareaindex
AT dabrowskazielinskakatarzyna comparisonbetweensupportvectormachineandwatercloudmodelforestimatingcropleafareaindex
AT deabelleyradiego comparisonbetweensupportvectormachineandwatercloudmodelforestimatingcropleafareaindex
AT gurdakradoslaw comparisonbetweensupportvectormachineandwatercloudmodelforestimatingcropleafareaindex
AT kumarvineet comparisonbetweensupportvectormachineandwatercloudmodelforestimatingcropleafareaindex
AT kussulnataliia comparisonbetweensupportvectormachineandwatercloudmodelforestimatingcropleafareaindex
AT mandaldipankar comparisonbetweensupportvectormachineandwatercloudmodelforestimatingcropleafareaindex
AT raoys comparisonbetweensupportvectormachineandwatercloudmodelforestimatingcropleafareaindex
AT saliendranicanor comparisonbetweensupportvectormachineandwatercloudmodelforestimatingcropleafareaindex
AT shelestovandrii comparisonbetweensupportvectormachineandwatercloudmodelforestimatingcropleafareaindex
AT spenglerdaniel comparisonbetweensupportvectormachineandwatercloudmodelforestimatingcropleafareaindex
AT veronsantiagoramon comparisonbetweensupportvectormachineandwatercloudmodelforestimatingcropleafareaindex
AT homayounisaeid comparisonbetweensupportvectormachineandwatercloudmodelforestimatingcropleafareaindex
AT beckerreshefinbal comparisonbetweensupportvectormachineandwatercloudmodelforestimatingcropleafareaindex
_version_ 1756008556519227392
spelling oai:localhost:20.500.12123-132842022-11-02T11:12:11Z A comparison between support vector machine and water Cloud model for estimating crop leaf area index Hosseini, Mehdi McNairn, Heather Mitchell, Scott Robertson, Laura Dingle Davidson, Andrew Ahmadian, Nima Bhattacharya, Avik Borg, Erik Conrad, Christopher Dabrowska Zielinska, Katarzyna De Abelleyra, Diego Gurdak, Radoslaw Kumar, Vineet Kussul, Nataliia Mandal, Dipankar Rao, Y.S. Saliendra, Nicanor Shelestov, Andrii Spengler, Daniel Veron, Santiago Ramón Homayouni, Saeid Becker Reshef, Inbal Leaf Area Index Remote Sensing Índice de Superficie Foliar Teledetección RADARSAT-2 Sentinel-1 Modelo de Nube de Agua Aprendizaje Automático Water Cloud Model Machine Learning The water cloud model (WCM) can be inverted to estimate leaf area index (LAI) using the intensity of backscatter from synthetic aperture radar (SAR) sensors. Published studies have demonstrated that the WCM can accurately estimate LAI if the model is effectively calibrated. However, calibration of this model requires access to field measures of LAI as well as soil moisture. In contrast, machine learning (ML) algorithms can be trained to estimate LAI from satellite data, even if field moisture measures are not available. In this study, a support vector machine (SVM) was trained to estimate the LAI for corn, soybeans, rice, and wheat crops. These results were compared to LAI estimates from the WCM. To complete this comparison, in situ and satellite data were collected from seven Joint Experiment for Crop Assessment and Monitoring (JECAM) sites located in Argentina, Canada, Germany, India, Poland, Ukraine and the United States of America (U.S.A.). The models used C-Band backscatter intensity for two polarizations (like-polarization (VV) and cross-polarization (VH)) acquired by the RADARSAT-2 and Sentinel-1 SAR satellites. Both the WCM and SVM models performed well in estimating the LAI of corn. For the SVM, the correlation (R) between estimated LAI for corn and LAI measured in situ was reported as 0.93, with a root mean square error (RMSE) of 0.64 m2m−2 and mean absolute error (MAE) of 0.51 m2m−2 . The WCM produced an R-value of 0.89, with only slightly higher errors (RMSE of 0.75 m2m−2 and MAE of 0.61 m2m−2 ) when estimating corn LAI. For rice, only the SVM model was tested, given the lack of soil moisture measures for this crop. In this case, both high correlations and low errors were observed in estimating the LAI of rice using SVM (R of 0.96, RMSE of 0.41 m2m−2 and MAE of 0.30 m2m−2 ). However, the results demonstrated that when the calibration points were limited (in this case for soybeans), the WCM outperformed the SVM model. This study demonstrates the importance of testing different modeling approaches over diverse agro-ecosystems to increase confidence in model performance. Fil: Hosseini, Mehdi. Carleton University. Department of Geography and Environmental Studies; Canadá. University of Maryland. Department of Geographical Sciences; Estados Unidos Fil: McNairn, Heather. Carleton University. Department of Geography and Environmental Studies; Canada. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Science and Technology Branch; Canadá Fil: Mitchell, Scott. Carleton University. Department of Geography and Environmental Studies; Canadá. Fil: Dingle Robertson, Laura. University of Maryland. Department of Geographical Sciences; Estados Unidos Fil: Davidson, Andrew. Carleton University. Department of Geography and Environmental Studies; Canadá. University of Maryland. Department of Geographical Sciences; Estados Unidos Fil: Ahmadian, Nima. Julius-Maximilians-Universität; Alemania Fil: Bhattacharya, Avik. Indian Institute of Technology. Centre of Studies in Resources Engineering. Microwave Remote Sensing Lab; India Fil: Borg, Erik. German Aerospace Center. Department of National Ground Segment; Alemania Fil: Conrad, Christopher. University of Halle-Wittenberg. Institute of Geosciences and Geography; Alemania Fil: Dabrowska-Zielinska, Katarzyna. Institute of Geodesy and Cartography; Polonia Fil: De Abelleyra, Diego. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Clima y Agua; Argentina Fil: Gurdak, Radoslaw. Institute of Geodesy and Cartography; Polonia Fil: Kumar, Vineet. Indian Institute of Technology. Centre of Studies in Resources Engineering. Microwave Remote Sensing Lab; India. Delft University of Technology. Department of Water Management; Países Bajos Fil: Kussul, Nataliia. Space Research Institute of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine and State Space Agency of Ukraine; Ucrania Fil: Mandal, Dipankar. Indian Institute of Technology. Centre of Studies in Resources Engineering. Microwave Remote Sensing Lab; India Fil: Rao, Y. S. Indian Institute of Technology. Centre of Studies in Resources Engineering. Microwave Remote Sensing Lab; India Fil: Saliendra, Nicanor. USDA-ARS Northern Great Plains Research Laboratory; Estados Unidos Fil: Shelestov, Andrii. Space Research Institute of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine and State Space Agency of Ukraine; Ucrania Fil: Spengler, Daniel. Deutsches GeoForschungs Zentrum (GFZ). Division of Remote Sensing; Alemania Fil: Verón, Santiago Ramón. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Clima y Agua; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomía. Departamento de Métodos Cuantitativos y Sistemas de Información; Argentina Fil: Homayouni, Saeid. Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique (INRS). Center Eau Terre Environnement; Canadá Fil: Becker-Reshef, Inbal. University of Maryland, Department of Geographical Sciences; Estados Unidos 2022-11-02T10:53:32Z 2022-11-02T10:53:32Z 2021-04-01 info:ar-repo/semantics/artículo info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/13284 https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/13/7/1348 2072-4292 https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13071348 eng info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess application/pdf MDPI Remote Sensing 13 (7) : 1348. (2021)