Skip to main content

Survey on Machine Learning and Deep Learning Techniques for Agriculture Land

Abstract

Agriculture land is playing a vital role in developing the economy of Indian states and contributes ~ 15% of India’s gross domestic product (GDP). Moreover, agriculture is a major source of livelihood by engaging two-third (~ 66%) of the nation’s population in various activities such as food supply, the raw material to the industries, internal and external trade. Therefore, the continuous monitoring and mapping of agricultural land are crucial for the sustainable life and development of the country. Most of the agriculture monitoring solutions are based on field observations or conventional strategies which are time-consuming and costlier. However, remote sensing delivers a cost-effective solution of acquiring information regarding the healthy or unhealthy vegetation in agricultural land with the help of a diverse range of advanced geospatial techniques such as classification, change detection, and pan-sharpening. In the present paper, we have performed a systematic survey with respect to recent advancements made in the classification algorithm, especially for agricultural land. These emerging methods incorporated in classifiers are machine learning and deep learning to enhance and detect the various features of vegetation parameters. It is expected that such studies will provide effective guidance to the researchers in better understanding the features, limitations, and specific importance of emerging classifiers in the Agriculture domain.

Introduction

Agriculture land is the backbone of the Indian economy and the major source of national income via agriculture and allied activities. Agriculture acts as a supply chain of food products and raw materials for industrial development, commercial activities, and international trade [77]. It has also been observed that in India, since the past few decades, agriculture activities have been continuously decreasing due to urbanization or the growth of other sectors [44]. But it is still high as compared to other countries. It is more important to perform the comprehensive assessment of agriculture with respect to crop production which is essential to meet the demands of the food supply chain [78]. To assess the agricultural land, field observation methods are generally followed which is a time-consuming, expensive and tedious task [3]. Moreover, there is a very rare possibility of continuous monitoring on a daily or weekly basis. Crop mapping and classification are some of the most difficult tasks among agricultural land problems [32]. In agricultural land, the most common approach used for crop monitoring is the digital cameras or field observation for evaluation of the crop yield which may be costly or limited to the small area [12]. Therefore, automatic, consistent and a fast, system are necessary to deliver the precise crop mapping and monitoring over all large scale [4].

Remote sensing via optical or microwave imaging offers a cost-effective way to monitor the land cover changes at a very large scale [29]. The continuous monitoring and assessment of agricultural cropland provide valuable insights into the different agronomic parameters [61, 69]. The use of advanced geospatial technologies is necessary to acquire information related to variations in soil, climate, and other physic-chemical changes [49]. The monitoring of agricultural manufacturing systems follows strong seasonal patterns about the biological life cycle of yields. Every part of these factors is highly variable in time and space dimensions [71].

To monitor the agricultural land, various techniques are available such as change detection, classification, and fusion or pan-sharpening [44, 83]. Change detection procedures are generally used to monitor multi-temporal changes and detailed information can be found in different studies [44, 83]. In change detection procedures, classification is an important element to categorize the different land types based on their similarity score and allow the user to extract the meaningful information in the form of a thematic map [45]. The classification techniques can be categorized as (a) supervised/ unsupervised; (b) parametric/non-parametric, (c) hard/soft, (d) per-pixel/sub-pixel, and (e) object-based classification [44]. Due to the limitations of various satellite sensors, it is not possible to acquire the earth imagery at a very high temporal and spatial resolution simultaneously and there is a requirement to perform the pan-sharpening or fusion of high-resolution and low-resolution datasets. In many cases, pan-sharpening is found to be more effective to improve the classification and change detection results [81].

However, the main focus of the present study is to make a comparative study on various emerging land-use and land-cover classifiers. Generally, supervised classification requires having adequate knowledge about prior information or training data to generate classified images. Whereas, in unsupervised classifiers, there is no requirement of prior information or training data because it classifies the input dataset based on similarity or in the form of clusters [86]. Moreover, semi-supervised classifiers are more preferable due to their less dependency on user’s skills and handling more complex problems [81]. Nowadays, some machine learning or deep learning-based classifiers have become more popular due to their effectiveness in extracting critical information from remotely sensed data. Table 1 summarizes some of the basic and advanced classifiers, especially for agricultural land.

Table 1 Agricultural land with machine learning and deep learning

In the present paper, we address the major developments made into the field of classifiers based on satellite datasets, epically for agricultural land. The aim of the present analysis is on: (a) the recent advancements made in classification methods; and (b) comparative analysis of different strategies to monitor agricultural land. This paper also highlights the different types of satellite sensors available or previously used in agriculture applications and various steps involved in satellite dataset pre-processing as explained in the second section. Afterward, a detailed review of conventional as well as advanced classification models for agriculture applications. At last, we have made the summary and future recommendations for optimal ways to use satellite datasets of agricultural land in sections.

Classification Models

The supervised classification requires the training data to classify the input dataset [34] such as decision tree, minimum distance [39], nearest neighbor (NN) [102], and maximum likelihood classifier (MLC) [14]. Whereas, the unsupervised classifiers divide the spectral information into specified class categories based on statistical information acquired from an image itself [15, 16]. Such as ISO [89] and K-mean [15, 16]. The parameters classifiers like mean-vector and covariance matrix are often generated from training samples [63]. In the case of complicated landscapes, parametric classifiers generate undesirable results such as linear discriminant analysis [63] and MLC [15, 16]. Non-parametric classifiers are generally based on the exclusion of statistical parameters and free to learn with the help of training dataset such as support vector machine (SVM) [74], NN [21], decision tree [21].

Conventional classifiers are generally based on the signatures generated from the training dataset (Table 2). These classifiers generally ignore the mixed pixel information and provide the result based on maximum likelihood [33]. Such as MLC [24], NN, decision tree [14, 36].

Table 2 General convention in agricultural land

Whereas, subpixel classifier offers the combination of partial membership of multiple class categories within a specific pixel [86] such as Fuzzy-set [80, 84], spectral mixture analysis [63] and linear mixture model [87]. The OBC classifiers involved the categorization of pixels based on the spatial relationship with the surrounding pixels [39]. In this paper, we have reviewed different approaches (neural networks, machine learning, and deep learning) with highlighting various features like classification techniques, classifier, sensor category, crop/parameters, and performance accuracy. NN (Neural Networks) are smart tools to derive thematic maps from satellite datasets (Table 2).

Machine Learning-Based Classifiers

The machine learning approach is used to solve large nonlinear problems using datasets from various sources. It enables improved decision-making and knowledgeable procedures in a real-world scenario with minimum dependency on the user’s skill. It provides a flexible and powerful structure for the integration of expert information into the system. The machine learning approaches are broadly used for the accurate measuring of biotic stress for weed detection as well as plant disease in the crop (Table 3). Cai et al. [7] described the utilization of Landsat series spectral data to solve the problem of clouds while implementing the machine learning model and more accurate analysis of the classification process. Coopersmith et al. [10] reported the landowner to hesitant to place sensors due to financial cost, difficulty, and sometimes infeasibility physical visit to the remote location which may be limited by modeling the wetting or drying process through machine learning algorithms. Duro et al. [14] selected a subset of a large amount of drainage basin select for a long-term study land-use and land-cover monitoring.

Table 3 Agricultural land with machine learning (ML)

Deep Learning-Based Classifiers

The deep learning further extends machine learning applications into more depth as well as transforms the dataset using the different function that hierarchically allows data representation, through several levels’ abstractions. A strong benefit of deep learning is feature-based learning that includes the automatics extraction of different features from input dataset Table 4, represents the various deep learning approaches including CaffeNet and convolution neural network (CNN). Kussul et al. [33] utilized the multilevel deep learning architecture for the classification of different land use and land cover types from remotely sensed datasets. In this section, we briefly review relevant deep learning-based models that were originally proposed for visual dataset processing and that are widely used for state-of-the-art research into deep learning in Remote Sensing Dataset. In addition, we mention the latest deep learning developments, which are not yet widely applied to remote sensing but may help create the next generation of its algorithms. Figure 1 gives an overview of the deep learning models we discuss in this section.

Table 4 Agricultural land with Deep Learning
Fig. 1
figure1

An overview of various deep learning classifiers: a deep convolution neural network (DCNN), b autoencoders, c recurrent neural network (RNN), and d convolution neural network (CNN)

Further, [76] provided a better understanding of the capability of Sentinel-1 dataset radar dataset or images for agricultural land mapping. Ndikumana et al. [53] developed the deep learning model efficiently and perfectly classify cloud, shadow, and land cover in different high-resolution satellite datasets. Moreover, Zhou et al. [102] investigated the suitability and potential of DCNN in the supervised classification of POLSAR (Polarimetric Synthetic Aperture Radar) dataset. Spatial information was naturally employed to terrain classification due to the properties of convolutional networks (Table 5).

Table 5 Deep learning models and its application

Sowing and Harvest of Summer and Winter Crops

Figure 2 represents the Sowing and harvesting of different crops during the summer season (May–October) and winter (October–April) [41]. The phonological stages for each crop’s and Botanical names such as wheat (Triticum aestivum), Barley (Hordeum vulgare), Mustard (Brassica nigra), Berseem (Trifolium alexandrinum), Paddy (Oryza sativa), Corn (Zea mays), Millet (Pennisetum typhodium), Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) and Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) have been acquired from growth guides provided by Punjab State’s Department of Forestry, Agriculture, and established by interviews with neighborhood farmers [33].

Fig. 2
figure2

An overview of various agricultural production phases

Traditionally, mapping the vegetation of an entire area is a matter of time and requires a demanding field survey. Remotely sensed datasets, especially such as sentinel-2, Landsat-8, and MODIS dataset the classification and monitoring of vegetation can be accomplished more cost-effectively with more detail in less period with the help of machine learning and deep learning approaches (Table 6). Three stages play an important role for vegetation monitoring or mapping of Punjab state’s region such as plantation, growth, and harvest time of crop cycle. In the past, classifiers have proved useful for finding different crop classes such as SVM [77] and KNN [34] for wheat; RF, SVM [77] and NN [101] for barley; RF, KNN and DCNN [34] for mustard; DT, RF and SVM [26] for Berseem and paddy; KNN [7] for corn; RF [4] for millet and sorghum and MLP [33] RF and DCNN [34] for sugarcane.

Table 6 Different machine learning and deep learning approaches related to agriculture informatics

Summary and Conclusion

The main focus of the present analysis is on the recent advancements made in classification methods and comparative studies on different strategies to monitor agricultural land [28]. Agriculture monitoring via remote sensing offers a cost-effective and rapid way. Nowadays, a significant contribution has been in the field of agriculture monitoring via satellite images due to the free data access policy offered by most space organizations [36]. With continuous development in space technology such as high spectral, spatial, and temporal resolutions, more or unexplored information can be warranted in the future [46]. Advanced geospatial classification techniques such as machine learning and deep learning can be more significant to extract important information from agricultural land [58].

From the previous literature, it is apparent that pixel-based methods have certain limitations such as not considering the variations within a pixel which can be effectively solved with the help of sub-pixel-based approaches up to a great extent. There is further existence of variation within a pixel [9]. Most studies on satellite datasets highlighted the performance of object-based classification approaches for different regions such as agriculture areas, urban areas, forests, and wetlands [47]. In the past various years, different studies have been carried out using different emerging classifiers in remote sensing-based agriculture applications [91]. Worked on NN and concluded that NN spontaneously selects the training samples on the contextual information extracted from the target area [34]. Moreover, the spatial distributions of the objects have also been improved and strengthened as it uses multi-scale contextual information [34, 76]. The accuracy in class-category and boundary information has also been improved in NN classified maps [18].

Moreover, the machine learning classifiers such as DT [26], SVM [20], RF [1], MLP [15, 16] and KNN [7] has the potential to improve the classification results in agriculture regions as compared to conventional classifiers [37]. Moreover, machine learning techniques directly study information from small data samples through their features and successively construct a difficult statistical model to make predictions on larger ones [15, 16]. These features come from variables that are involved in classification, namely predicting variables [7]. Such data-driven approaches can enhance the possibilities to adaptively improve the performance of a model by avoiding the problem of over-fitting or under-fitting [1].

On the other hand, the deep learning classifier such as CNN [76], RNN [5] and DCNNs [34] or object-based classification techniques improve the extraction of the agricultural land classes [76]. Within the deep learning approach, convolutional and pooling layers are connected alternatively to simplify the features towards deep and intellectual representations. Typically, the convolutional layer improves the learning procedure through a set of samples or image patches across the dataset [91]. Those weights are shared by different feature maps, in which multiple features are learned with a reduced number of parameters, and an activation function, e.g., rectified linear unit is followed to strengthen the non-linearity of the convolutional operations [62]. The pooling layer involves max-pooling or average-pooling, where the summary statistics of local regions are derived to further enhance the generalization capability.

The advanced methodologies (ML and DL) have the potential to become very important to the monitoring of agricultural land using satellite datasets. To apply these technologies for plant diseases, weed detection, real-time field operations, and soil analysis may become routine operations in close to future agriculture [17, 53]. Moreover, the development and integration of advanced algorithms in classification or change detection procedures may be beneficial to acquire information regarding the different vegetation types over agricultural land. Further, the machine and deep learning-based techniques can also be tested for vegetation monitoring over rugged terrain where remote sensing is highly affected with differential illumination effects in the form of shadow [79].

In this paper, we have systematically reviewed the state-of-art machine learning and deep learning techniques in remote sensing data analysis [67]. The deep learning techniques were originally rooted in machine learning fields for classification and recognition tasks, and they have only recently appeared in the remote sensing and geoscience community [30]. From the five perspectives of (a) supervised/ unsupervised; (b) Parametric/non-parametric, (c) hard/soft, (d) per-pixel/sub-pixel, and (e) object-based classification, we have found that deep learning techniques have had significant successes in the areas of target recognition and scene understanding, i.e., areas that have widely accepted as challenges in recent decades in the remote sensing community because such applications require us to abstract the high-level semantic information from the bottom level features, while the traditional remote sensing methods of feature describing feature extraction classification are shallow models, with which it is extremely difficult or impossible to uncover the high-level representation [8].

In agricultural land, which is an SVM-based technique, the testing on the automatic extraction of human-made objects is not made, and the segmentation accuracy limitation is not resolved [50]. The developed SVM classifier is not suitable for the applications, such as change identification and monitoring of the environment [100]. The classification accuracy is not achieved to the expected limit in the developed multi-spectral dataset by utilization of the SVM and RF classifiers [53]. The classification result is not improved by the DT classifier as the training dataset, and the testing area is limited. The research challenges in the DNN-based classification are, DCNN is not advisable for the classification of multi-sensor and multi-resolution satellite datasets (Singh, Sethi, and Singh, 2021). The developed ANN classifier [79, 82] cannot achieve the expected accuracy in massive distinct region databases and suffer from high computational complexity. However, the research in deep learning is still young and many queries remain unsolved. They are some potentially interesting topics in machine learning and deep learning for remote sensing data analysis such as (a) the total number of training samples [99]; (b) the complexity of remote sensing images [11]; (c) transfer between data sets [96]; (d) depth of deep learning model [104].

References

  1. 1.

    Abdi AM. Land cover and land use classification performance of machine learning algorithms in a boreal landscape using Sentinel-2 data. GISci Remote Sens. 2020;57(1):1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/15481603.2019.1650447.

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Ahmadlou M, et al. Flood susceptibility mapping and assessment using a novel deep learning model combining multilayer perceptron and autoencoder neural networks. J Flood Risk Manag. 2021;14(1):1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Aznar-sánchez JA, et al. Worldwide research trends on sustainable land use in agriculture. Land Use Policy. 2019;87:1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    do Bendini HN, et al. Detailed agricultural land classification in the Brazilian cerrado based on phenological information from dense satellite image time series. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinformation. 2019;82:1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Benedetti P, et al. M 3 fusion : a deep learning architecture for satellite data fusion. IEEE J Sel Top Appl Earth Observ Remote Sens. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSTARS.2018.2876357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Bhosle K, Musande V. Evaluation of CNN model by comparing with convolutional autoencoder and deep neural network for crop classification on hyperspectral imagery. Geocarto Int. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2020.1740950.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Cai Y, et al. A high-performance and in-season classification system of field-level crop types using time-series Landsat data and a machine learning approach. Remote Sens Environ. 2018;210:35–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2018.02.045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Chen B, Li J, Jin Y. Deep learning for feature-level data fusion: higher resolution reconstruction of historical landsat archive. Remote Sens. 2021;13(2):1–23. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13020167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Chlingaryan A, Sukkarieh S, Whelan B. Machine learning approaches for crop yield prediction and nitrogen status estimation in precision agriculture : a review. Comput Electron Agric. 2018;151:61–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2018.05.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Coopersmith EJ, et al. Machine learning assessments of soil drying for agricultural planning. Comput Electron Agric. 2014;104:93–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2014.04.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Costache R, et al. Flash-flood potential mapping using deep learning, alternating decision trees and data provided by remote sensing sensors. Sensors (Switzerland). 2021;21(1):1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21010280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Degife AW, Zabel F, Mauser W. Assessing land use and land cover changes and agricultural farmland expansions in Gambella Region, Ethiopia, using Landsat 5 and Sentinel 2a multispectral data. Heliyon. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.e00919.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Du, G., Yuan, L., Shin, K.J. and Managi, S., 2018. Enhancement of land-use change modeling using convolutional neural networks and convolutional denoising autoencoders. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.01159.

  14. 14.

    Duro DC, Franklin SE, Dubé MG. A comparison of pixel-based and object-based image analysis with selected machine learning algorithms for the classification of agricultural landscapes using SPOT-5 HRG imagery. Remote Sens Environ. 2012;118:259–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2011.11.020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Feng P, et al. Machine learning-based integration of remotely-sensed drought factors can improve the estimation of agricultural drought in South-Eastern Australia. Agric Syst. 2019;173:303–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.03.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Feng Q, et al. Integrating multitemporal Sentinel-1/2 data for coastal land cover classification using a multibranch convolutional neural network: a case of the Yellow River Delta. Remote Sensing. 2019;11(9):2019. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11091006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Folberth C, et al. Spatio-temporal downscaling of gridded crop model yield estimates based on machine learning. Agric For Meteorol. 2019;264:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2018.09.021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Gaetano R, et al. A two-branch CNN architecture for land cover classification of PAN and MS imagery. Remote Sens. 2018. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10111746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Ge G, et al. Land use/cover classification in an arid desert-oasis mosaic landscape of China using remote sensed imagery: performance assessment of four machine learning algorithms. Glob Ecol Conserv. 2020;22: e00971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e00971.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Gibril MBA, et al. Integrative image segmentation optimization and machine learning approach for high quality land-use and land-cover mapping using multisource remote sensing data. J Appl Remote Sens. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JRS.12.016036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Gilbertson JK, Niekerk AV. Value of dimensionality reduction for crop differentiation with multi- temporal imagery and machine learning. Comput Electron Agric. 2017;142:50–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2017.08.024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Helber P, et al. Introducing Eurosat: a novel dataset and deep learning benchmark for land use and land cover classification. IEEE Int Geosci Remote Sens Symp. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1109/IGARSS.2018.8519248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Heydari SS, Mountrakis G. Meta-analysis of deep neural networks in remote sensing: a comparative study of mono-temporal classification to support vector machines. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens. 2019;152:192–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2019.04.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Hütt C, et al. Best accuracy land use / land cover ( LULC ) classification to derive crop types using multitemporal, multisensor, and multi-polarization SAR satellite images. Remote Sens. 2016;8:1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs8080684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Ienco D, et al. Land cover classification via multitemporal spatial data by deep recurrent neural networks. IEEE Geosc Remote Sens Lett. 2017;14:1685–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Immitzer M, Vuolo F, Atzberger C. First experience with sentinel-2 data for crop and tree species classifications in central Europe. Remote Sens. 2016. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs8030166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Interdonato R, et al. DuPLO: a dual view point deep learning architecture for time series classification. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens. 2019;149:91–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2019.01.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Janus J, Bozek P. Land abandonment in Poland after the collapse of socialism: over a quarter of a century of increasing tree cover on agricultural land. Ecol Eng. 2019;138:106–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Jensen JR. Remote sensing of the environment: an earth resource perspective 2/e. London: Pearson Education India; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Kattenborn T, et al. Review on convolutional neural networks (CNN) in vegetation remote sensing. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens. 2021;173:24–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2020.12.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Keshtkar H, Voigt W, Alizadeh E. Land-cover classification and analysis of change using machine-learning classifiers and multi-temporal remote sensing imagery. Arab J Geosci. 2017;10(6):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-017-2899-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Sharma, K., Sethi, G. and Bawa, R., 2020, March. State-of-the-Art in Automatic Rice Quality Grading System. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Innovative Computing & Communications (ICICC).

  33. 33.

    Kussul N, et al. Parcel-based crop classification in Ukraine using Landsat-8 data and Sentinel-1A data. IEEE J Sel Top Appl Earth Observ Remote Sens. 2016;9:2500–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Kussul N, et al. Deep learning classification of land cover and crop types using remote sensing data. IEEE Geosci Remote Sens Lett. 2017;14(5):778–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Kussul N, et al. Crop inventory at regional scale in Ukraine: developing in season and end of season crop maps with multi-temporal optical and SAR satellite imagery. Eur J Remote Sens. 2018;51(1):627–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/22797254.2018.1454265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Lark TJ, et al. Measuring land-use and land-cover change using the U. S. department of agriculture’s cropland data layer: cautions and recommendations. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinformation. 2017;62:224–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2017.06.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Van Leeuwen B, Tobak Z, Kovács F. Machine learning techniques for land use / land cover classification of medium resolution optical satellite imagery focusing on temporary inundated areas. J Environ Geogr. 2020;13(2060):43–52. https://doi.org/10.2478/jengeo-2020-0005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Li H, et al. Effective representing of information network by variational autoencoder. Int Jt Conf Artif Intell. 2017. https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2017/292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Li M, et al. A systematic comparison of different object-based classification techniques using high spatial resolution imagery in agricultural environments. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf. 2016;49:87–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Liu J, et al. Identifying major crop types in eastern Canada using a fuzzy decision tree classifier and phenological indicators derived from time series MODIS data. Can J Remote Sens. 2016;42(3):259–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/07038992.2016.1171133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Liu J, et al. Winter wheat mapping using a random forest classifier combined with multi-temporal and multi-sensor data. Int J Digit Earth. 2018;11(8):783–802. https://doi.org/10.1080/17538947.2017.1356388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Liu J, Hu T, Green M. Potential impacts of agricultural land use on soil cover in response to bioenergy production in Canada. Land Use Policy. 2018;75:33–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.03.032.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Liu Y, et al. Scene classification based on multiscale convolutional neural network. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2018.2848473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Lu D, et al. Change detection techniques. Int J Remote Sens. 2004;25(12):2365–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/0143116031000139863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Lu D, Weng Q. A survey of image classification methods and techniques for improving classification performance. Int J Remote Sens. 2007;28(5):823–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431160600746456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Lucas R, et al. Rule-based classification of multi-temporal satellite imagery for habitat and agricultural land cover mapping. J Photogramm Remote Sens. 2007;62:165–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2007.03.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Lv, Q., Dou, Y., Niu, X., Xu, J. and Li, B., 2014, July. Classification of land cover based on deep belief networks using polarimetric RADARSAT-2 data. In 2014 IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (pp. 4679–4682). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/IGARSS.2014.6947537.

  48. 48.

    Maxwell AE, et al. Implementation of machine-learning classification in remote sensing: an applied review sensing : an applied review. Int J Remote Sens. 2018;39(9):2784–817. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2018.1433343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Mercier A, et al. Evaluation of Sentinel-1 and 2 time series for land cover classification of forest: agriculture mosaics in temperate and tropical landscapes. Remote Sens. 2019. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11080979.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Momade MH, et al. Modelling labour productivity using SVM and RF: a comparative study on classifiers performance. Int J Constr Manag. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2020.1744799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Myint SW, et al. Per-pixel vs. object-based classification of urban land cover extraction using high spatial resolution imagery. Remote Sens Environ. 2011;115(5):1145–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2010.12.017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Navarro A, et al. Crop monitoring based on SPOT-5 Take-5 and sentinel-1A data for the estimation of crop water requirements. Remote Sens. 2016. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs8060525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Ndikumana E, et al. ‘Deep recurrent neural network for agricultural classification using multitemporal sar sentinel-1 for Camargue, France. Remote Sens. 2018;10:1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10081217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Nijhawan R, Srivastava I, Shukla P. Land cover classification using supervised and unsupervised learning techniques. In: International Conference on Computational Intelligence in Data Science(ICCIDS) Land, 2017, pp. 1–6.

  55. 55.

    Onojeghuo AO, et al. Mapping paddy rice fields by applying machine learning algorithms to multi-temporal sentinel-1A and landsat data. Int J Remote Sens. 2018;39(4):1042–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2017.1395969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Othman E, et al. Using convolutional features and a sparse autoencoder for land-use scene classification. Int J Remote Sens. 2016;37(10):2149–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2016.1171928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Park S, et al. Classification and mapping of paddy rice by combining Landsat and SAR time series data. Remote Sensing. 2018;10(3):1–22. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10030447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Phiri D, Morgenroth J. Developments in landsat land cover classification methods: a review. Remote Sens. 2017. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs9090967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Qadri S, et al. Multisource data fusion framework for land use/land cover classification using machine vision. J Sens. 2017;2017:1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Qiao C, Daneshfar B, Davidson AM. The application of discriminant analysis for mapping cereals and pasture using object-based features. Int J Remote Sens. 2017;38(20):5546–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2017.1325530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Rady O, et al. Temporal detection and prediction of agricultural land consumption by urbanization using remote sensing. Egypt J Remote Sens Space Scie. 2019;22:237–46.

    Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Ramanath A, et al. NDVI versus CNN features in deep learning for land cover classification of aerial images. In: IGARSS 2019 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, 2019, pp. 6483–6.

  63. 63.

    Rehman TU, et al. Current and future applications of statistical machine learning algorithms for agricultural machine vision systems. Comput Electron Agric. 2019;156:585–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2018.12.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Rezaee M, et al. Deep convolutional neural network for complex wetland classification using optical remote sensing imagery. IEEE J Sel Top Appl Earth Observ Remote Sens. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSTARS.2018.2846178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Robertson LD, King DJ. Comparison of pixel-and object-based classification in land cover change mapping. Int J Remote Sens. 2011;32(6):1505–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431160903571791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Rodriguez-galiano VF, et al. An assessment of the effectiveness of a random forest classifier for land-cover classification. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens. 2012;67:93–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2011.11.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Rukhovich DI, et al. The use of deep machine learning for the automated selection of remote sensing data for the determination of areas of arable land degradation processes distribution. Remote Sens. 2021;13(1):1–28. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13010155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Salehi B, Daneshfar B, Davidson AM. Accurate crop-type classification using multi-temporal optical and multi-polarization SAR data in an object-based image analysis framework. Int J Remote Sens. 2017;38(14):4130–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2017.1317933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Schaefer M, Thinh NX. Evaluation of land cover change and agricultural protection sites: a GIS and remote sensing approach for Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Heliyon. 2019;5:e01773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Scott GJ, et al. Training deep convolutional neural networks training deep convolutional neural networks for land cover classification of high-resolution imagery. IEEE Geosci Remote Sens Lett. 2017;14:549–53. https://doi.org/10.1109/LGRS.2017.2657778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Shanmugapriya P, et al. Applications of remote sensing in agriculture: a review. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2019;8(01):2270–83. https://doi.org/10.2478/gein-2014-0007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Sharma A, Liu X, Yang X. Land cover classification from multi-temporal, multi-spectral remotely sensed imagery using patch-based recurrent neural networks. Neural Netw. 2018;105:346–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2018.05.019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Sharma JK, Mishra VD, Khanna R. Impact of topography on accuracy of land cover spectral change vector analysis using AWIFS in Western Himalaya. J Indian Soc Remote Sens. 2013;41(2):223–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12524-011-0180-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Shelestov A, et al. Exploring google earth engine platform for big data processing: classification of multi-temporal satellite imagery for crop mapping. Front Earth Sci. 2017. https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2017.00017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Shendryk, I., Rist, Y., Lucas, R., Thorburn, P. and Ticehurst, C., 2018, July. Deep learning-a new approach for multi-label scene classification in planetscope and sentinel-2 imagery. In IGARSS 2018-2018 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (pp. 1116–1119). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/IGARSS.2018.8517499.

  76. 76.

    Shendryk Y, et al. Deep learning for multi-modal classification of cloud, shadow and land cover scenes in PlanetScope and Sentinel-2 imagery’. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens. 2019;157:124–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Sicre CM, Fieuzal R, Baup F. Contribution of multispectral (optical and radar) satellite images to the classi fi cation of agricultural surfaces. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinform. 2020;84:1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Singh G, Sethi GK. Automatic land cover classification using learning techniques with dynamic features. Int J Innov Technol Explor Eng. 2019;8(8S3):499–503.

    Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Singh G, Sethi GK, Singh S. Performance analysis of deep learning classification for agriculture applications using sentinel-2 data. In: Ashish K, Luhach SJ, Hawari BG, Zhi G, Lingras P, editors. Advanced informatics for computing research. Singapore: Springer; 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-3660-8_19.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Singh S, et al. An efficient algorithm for detection of seasonal snow cover variations over undulating North Indian Himalayas, India. Sci Direct Adv Sp Res. 2019;64(2):314–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2019.04.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Singh S, et al. Response of topographic control on nearest-neighbor diffusion-based pan-sharpening using multispectral MODIS and AWiFS satellite dataset. Arab J Geosci. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-020-05686-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    Singh S, et al. Detection and validation of spatiotemporal snow cover variability in the Himalayas using Ku-band (13.5 GHz) SCATSAT-1 data. Int J Remote Sens. 2021;42(3):805–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/2150704X.2020.1825866.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    Singh S, Talwar R. A comparative study on change vector analysis based change detection techniques. Sadhana Acad Proc Eng Sci. 2014;39(6):1311–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12046-014-0286-x.

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Singh S, Talwar R. Response of fuzzy clustering on different threshold determination algorithms in spectral change vector analysis over Western Himalaya, India. J Mt Sci. 2017;14:1391–404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-016-4248-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Skakun S, et al. Efficiency assessment of multitemporal C-band radarsat-2 intensity and Landsat-8 surface reflectance satellite imagery for crop classification in Ukraine. IEEE J Sel Top Appl Earth Observ Remote Sens. 2016;9(8):3712–9. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSTARS.2015.2454297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    Sood V, et al. Spatial and quantitative comparison of topographically derived different classification algorithms using AWIFS data over Himalayas. J Indian Soc Remote Sens. 2018;4:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12524-018-0861-4.

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    Sood V, et al. Performance assessment of different topographic correction techniques over subpixel classification. ICIIP. 2020;1:536–41. https://doi.org/10.1109/iciip47207.2019.8985790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    Sood V, Singh S. Analytical analysis of shadow removing algorithms over land use and land cover classification. Himal Geol. 2018;3(2):223–32.

    Google Scholar 

  89. 89.

    Steen KA, et al. Using deep learning to challenge safety standard for highly autonomous machines in agriculture. J Imaging. 2016;2(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.3390/jimaging2010006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    Storie CD, Henry CJ. Deep learning neural networks for land use land cover mapping. In: IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, 2018, pp. 3453–6.

  91. 91.

    Tong X, et al. Land-cover classification with high-resolution remote sensing images using transferable deep models. Remote Sens Environ. 2020;237: 111322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.111322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. 92.

    Waldner F, et al. Towards a set of agrosystem-specific cropland mapping methods to address the global cropland diversity. Int J Remote Sens. 2016;37(14):3196–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2016.1194545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. 93.

    Wang XY, et al. Fusion of HJ1B and ALOS PALSAR data for land cover classification using machine learning methods. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf. 2016;52:192–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2016.06.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. 94.

    Whiteside TG, Boggs GS, Maier SW. Comparing object-based and pixel-based classifications for mapping savannas. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf. 2011;13(6):884–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2011.06.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. 95.

    Wolanin A, et al. Estimating crop primary productivity with Sentinel-2 and Landsat 8 using machine learning methods trained with radiative transfer simulations. Remote Sens Environ. 2019;225:441–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.03.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. 96.

    Wurm M, et al. Deep learning-based generation of building stock data from remote sensing for urban heat demand modeling. ISPRS Int J Geo-Inf. 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi10010023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. 97.

    Xu Z, et al. A 3D convolutional neural network method for land cover classification using LiDAR and multi-temporal Landsat imagery. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens. 2018;144:423–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2018.08.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. 98.

    Zhang C, et al. Joint deep learning for land cover and land use classification. Remote Sens Environ. 2019;221:173–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2018.11.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. 99.

    Zhang, L., Zhang, L. and Du, B., 2016. Deep learning for remote sensing data: A technical tutorial on the state of the art. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine, 4(2), pp.22–40. https://doi.org/10.1109/MGRS.2016.2540798.

  100. 100.

    Zhang R, et al. A novel feature-level fusion framework using optical and SAR remote sensing images for land use/land cover (LULC) classification in cloudy mountainous area. Appl Sci (Switz). 2020;10(8):1–24. https://doi.org/10.3390/APP10082928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. 101.

    Zhou Y, et al. Polarimetric SAR image classification using deep convolutional neural networks. IEEE Geosci Remote Sens Lett. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1109/LGRS.2016.2514521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. 102.

    Zhou Z, Li S, Shao Y. Crops classification from sentinel-2a multi-spectral remote sensing images based on convolutional neural networks. IGARSS. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1109/IGARSS.2018.8518860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. 103.

    Zhu N, et al. Deep learning for smart agriculture: concepts, tools, applications, and opportunities. Int J Agric Biol Eng. 2018;11(4):32–44. https://doi.org/10.25165/j.ijabe.20181104.4475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. 104.

    Zhu XX, et al. Deep learning in remote sensing : a review. IEEE Geosci Remote Sens Mag. 2017;5:4–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

GS, as the first author, had responsibility for conducting the research, including a writing task. Dr. GKS and Dr. SS, supervised the work, including a re-writing task and visualization, supervised the work. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sartajvir Singh.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Singh, G., Sethi, G.K. & Singh, S. Survey on Machine Learning and Deep Learning Techniques for Agriculture Land. SN COMPUT. SCI. 2, 487 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-021-00929-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Agriculture land
  • Machine learning
  • Deep learning
  • Artificial neural network
  • Remote sensing data