Multispectral Remote Sensing as a Tool to Support Organic Crop Certification: Assessment of the Discrimination Level between Organic and Conventional Maize
[en] The annual certification of organic agriculture products includes an in situ inspection of the fields declared organic. This inspection is more difficult, time-consuming, and costly for large farms or in production regions located in remote areas. The global objective of this research is to assess how spatial remote sensing may support the organic crop certification process by developing a method that would enable certification bodies to target for priority in situ control crop fields declared as organic but that would show on satellite imagery an appearance closer to conventional fields. For this purpose, the ability of multispectral satellite images to discriminate between organic and conventional maize fields was assessed through the use of a set of four satellite images of different spatial and spectral resolutions acquired at different crop growth stages over a large number of maize fields (32) that are part of an operational farm in Germany. In support of this main objective, a set of in situ measurements (leaf hyperspectral reflectance, chlorophyll, and nitrogen content and dry matter percentage, crop canopy cover, height, wet biomass and dry matter percentage, soil chemical composition) was conducted to characterize the nature of the biochemical and biophysical differences between organic and conventional maize fields. The results of this research showed that highly significant biochemical and biophysical differences between a large number of organic and conventional maize fields may exist at identified crop growth stages and that these differences may be sufficiently pronounced to enable the complete discrimination between crop management modes using satellite images issued from quite common multispectral satellite sensors through the use of spectral or spatial heterogeneity indices. These results are very encouraging and suggest, for the first time, that satellite images could effectively support the organic maize certification process.
Research center :
Water, Environment and Development Unit, Environmental Sciences and Management Department, Arlon Campus Environment, UR SPHERES, University of Liège
Disciplines :
Agriculture & agronomy Engineering, computing & technology: Multidisciplinary, general & others Life sciences: Multidisciplinary, general & others
Author, co-author :
Denis, Antoine ; Université de Liège - ULiège > DER Sc. et gest. de l'environnement (Arlon Campus Environ.) > DER Sc. et gest. de l'environnement (Arlon Campus Environ.)
Desclee, Baudouin
Migdall, Silke
Hansen, Herbert
Bach, Heike
Ott, Pierre
Kouadio, Amani Louis
Tychon, Bernard ; Université de Liège - ULiège > DER Sc. et gest. de l'environnement (Arlon Campus Environ.) > Eau, Environnement, Développement
Language :
English
Title :
Multispectral Remote Sensing as a Tool to Support Organic Crop Certification: Assessment of the Discrimination Level between Organic and Conventional Maize
Alternative titles :
[fr] La télédétection multispectrale comme outil pour aider la certification de l'agriculture biologique: évaluation du niveau de discrimination entre le maïs conventionnel et biologique
Publication date :
2021
Journal title :
Remote Sensing
eISSN :
2072-4292
Publisher :
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI), Basel, Switzerland
Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FiBL; IFOAM—Organics International. The World of Organic Agriculture. Statistics & Emerging Trends 2016. Available online: https://orgprints.org/31151/1/willer-lernoud-2016-world-of-organic.pdf (accessed on 24 November 2020).
Hudson, R.J. Management of Agricultural, Forestry, Fisheries and Rural Enterprise—Volume, I. Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS); EOLSS Publications: Oxford, UK, 2009; ISBN 978-1-84826-199-0.
Winston, E.; Op de Laak, J.; Marsh, T.; Lempke, H.; Chapman, K.; FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific. Arabica Coffee Manual for Lao-PDR. Chapter 4—Plant Nutrition & Fertiliser Management; FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific: Bangkok, Thailand, 2005; ISBN 974-7946-78-5.
Dalgaard, T.; Halberg, N.; Kristensen, I.S. Can organic farming help to reduce N-losses? Experiences from Denmark. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 1998, 52, 277–287. [CrossRef]
European Commission (EC). Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 of 5 September 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control. Off. J. Eur. Union 2008, 250, 84.
European Commission (EC). Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91. Off. J. Eur. Union 2007, 189, 1–23.
Commission Permanente du Comité National de l’Agriculture Biologique de l’Institut National de l’Origine et de la Qualité. Guide de lecture du RCE n◦ 834/2007 et du RCE n◦ 889/2008—Version du 1er décembre 2009. Guide de lecture pour l’application des règlements bio. 2009. Available online: https://www.sud-et-bio.com/sites/default/files/guide-lecture-bio_decembre090.pdf (accessed on 24 November 2020).
Jones, H.; Clarke, S.; Haigh, Z.; Pearce, H.; Wolfe, M. The effect of the year of wheat variety release on productivity and stability of performance on two organic and two non-organic farms. J. Agric. Sci. 2010, 148, 303–317. [CrossRef]
Benoit, M.; Garnier, J.; Billen, G.; Mercier, B.; Martinez, A.; Azougui, A. Observatoire de la lixiviation du nitrate en agriculture biologique. Réseau ABAC (bassin de la Seine). In Proceedings of the 4ème Séminaire du DIM Astréa sur la Recherche en Agriculture Biologique, Ile-de-France, France, 29 March 2016.
Pang, X.; Letey, J. Organic Farming Challenge of Timing Nitrogen Availability to Crop Nitrogen Requirements. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2000, 64, 247–253. [CrossRef]
Denis, A. Can Satellites Help Organic Crop Certification? Ph.D. Thesis, University of Liege, Liege, Belgium, 2018.
Denis, A.; Tychon, B. Remote sensing enables high discrimination between organic and non-organic cotton for organic cotton certification in West Africa. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 35, 1499–1510. [CrossRef]
Denis, A.; Tychon, B. Remote sensing and GIS techniques for supporting organic cotton certification process in West Africa. In Proceedings of the Global Geospatial Conference 2013—AFRICAGIS 2013—GSDI 14, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 4–8 November 2013; p. 51.
Balashova, N. Remote Sensing for Organic and Conventional Corn Assessment. Master’s Thesis, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH, USA, 2015; 91p. [CrossRef]
Ducati, J.R.; Sarate, R.E.; Fachel, J.M.G. Application of remote sensing techniques to discriminate between conventional and organic vineyards in the Loire Valley, France. J. Int. Sci. Vigne Vin 2014, 48, 135–144. [CrossRef]
Maresma, Á.; Ariza, M.; Martínez, E.; Lloveras, J.; Casasnovas, J.A.M. Analysis of Vegetation Indices to Determine Nitrogen Application and Yield Prediction in Maize (Zea mays L.) from a Standard UAV Service. Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 973. [CrossRef]
Gitelson, A.A. Wide Dynamic Range Vegetation Index for Remote Quantification of Biophysical Characteristics of Vegetation. J. Plant Physiol. 2004, 161, 165–173. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Yang, C.-C.; Prasher, S.O.; Whalen, J.; Goel, P.K. Use of Hyperspectral Imagery for Identification of Different Fertilisation Methods with Decision-tree Technology. Biosyst. Eng. 2002, 83, 291–298. [CrossRef]
De Ponti, T.; Rijk, B.; Van Ittersum, M.K. The crop yield gap between organic and conventional agriculture. Agric. Syst. 2012, 108, 1–9. [CrossRef]
Seufert, V.; Ramankutty, N.; Foley, J.A. Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature 2012, 485, 229–232. [CrossRef]
Ponisio, L.C.; M’Gonigle, L.K.; Mace, K.C.; Palomino, J.; De Valpine, P.; Kremen, C. Diversification practices reduce organic to conventional yield gap. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2015, 282, 1–7. [CrossRef]
Hossard, L.; Archer, D.W.; Bertrand, M.; Colnenne-David, C.; Debaeke, P.; Ernfors, M.; Jeuffroy, M.-H.; Munier-Jolain, N.; Nilsson, C.; Sanford, G.R.; et al. A Meta-Analysis of Maize and Wheat Yields in Low-Input vs. Conventional and Organic Systems. Agron. J. 2016, 108, 1155–1167. [CrossRef]
Lockeretz, W.; Shearer, G.; Sweeney, S.; Kuepper, G.; Wanner, D.; Kohl, D.H. Maize Yields and Soil Nutrient Levels with and without Pesticides and Standard Commercial Fertilizers. Agron. J. 1980, 72, 65–72. [CrossRef]
Burger, H.; Schloen, M.; Schmidt, W.; Geiger, H.H. Quantitative genetic studies on breeding maize for adaptation to organic farming. Euphytica 2008, 163, 501–510. [CrossRef]
Mäder, P.; DOK-Trial. The World’s Most Significant Long-Term Field Trial Comparing Organic and Conventional Cropping Systems. Available online: http://www.fibl.org/en/switzerland/research/soil-sciences/bw-projekte/dok-trial.html#c29082 (accessed on 3 June 2016).
Mäder, P.; Fliessbach, A.; Niggli, U.; Gunst, L.; Mayer, J. Ertrag von Mais und Sojabohnen im biologischen und konventionellen Anbausystem des DOK-Versuchs. In Ideal und Wirklichkeit: Perspektiven ökologischer Landbewirtschaftung, Proceedings of the Beiträge zur 12. Wissenschaftstagung Ökologischer Landbau, Bonn, Germany, 5–8 March 2013; Neuhoff, D., Stumm, C., Ziegler, S., Rahmann, G., Hamm, U., Köpke, U., Eds.; Verlag Dr. Köster: Berlin, Germany, 2013; p. 2.
European Commission. Organic versus Conventional Farming, Which Performs Better Financially? An Overview of Organic Field Crop and Milk Production in Selected Member States. 2013. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rica/pdf/FEB4_Organic_ farming_final_web.pdf (accessed on 24 November 2020).
Lotter, D.; Seidel, R.; Liebhardt, W. The performance of organic and conventional cropping systems in an extreme climate year. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 2003, 18, 146–154. [CrossRef]
Wortman, S.E.; Lindquist, J.L.; Haar, M.J.; Francis, C.A. Increased weed diversity, density and above-ground biomass in long-term organic crop rotations. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2010, 25, 281–295. [CrossRef]
Poudel, D.D.; Horwath, W.; Lanini, W.; Temple, S.; Van Bruggen, A. Comparison of soil N availability and leaching potential, crop yields and weeds in organic, low-input and conventional farming systems in northern California. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2002, 90, 125–137. [CrossRef]
Pimentel, D.; Hepperly, P.; Hanson, J.; Seidel, R.; Douds, D. Organic and Conventional Farming Systems: Environmental and Economic Issues. 2005. Available online: https://ecommons.cornell.edu/handle/1813/2101 (accessed on 24 November 2020).
Gabriel, D.; Sait, S.M.; Kunin, W.E.; Benton, T.G. Food production vs. biodiversity: Comparing organic and conventional agriculture. J. Appl. Ecol. 2013, 50, 355–364. [CrossRef]
Bilsborrow, P.; Cooper, J.; Tétard-Jones, C.; Średnicka-Tober, D.; Barański, M.; Eyre, M.; Schmidt, C.; Shotton, P.; Volakakis, N.; Cakmak, I.; et al. The effect of organic and conventional management on the yield and quality of wheat grown in a long-term field trial. Eur. J. Agron. 2013, 51, 71–80. [CrossRef]
Micskei, G. Comparative Studies on the Effect of Farmyard Manure and Mineral Fertilisers on the Growth of Maize in Long-Term Experiments. Ph.D. Thesis, Szent István University, Gödöllő, Hungary, 2012.
Cilia, C.; Panigada, C.; RossiniiD, M.; Meroni, M.; Busetto, L.; Amaducci, S.; Boschetti, M.; Picchi, V.; Colombo, R. Nitrogen Status Assessment for Variable Rate Fertilization in Maize through Hyperspectral Imagery. Remote Sens. 2014, 6, 6549–6565. [CrossRef]
Wu, C.; Wang, L.; Niu, Z.; Gao, S.; Wu, M. Nondestructive estimation of canopy chlorophyll content using Hyperion and Landsat/TM images. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2010, 31, 2159–2167. [CrossRef]
Haboudane, D.; Miller, J.R.; Tremblay, N.; Zarco-Tejada, P.J.; Dextraze, L. Integrated narrow-band vegetation indices for prediction of crop chlorophyll content for application to precision agriculture. Remote Sens. Environ. 2002, 81, 416–426. [CrossRef]
Liu, J.; Pattey, E.; Jégo, G. Assessment of vegetation indices for regional crop green LAI estimation from Landsat images over multiple growing seasons. Remote Sens. Environ. 2012, 123, 347–358. [CrossRef]
Haboudane, D.; Miller, J.R.; Pattey, E.; Zarco-Tejada, P.J.; Strachan, I.B. Hyperspectral vegetation indices and novel algorithms for predicting green LAI of crop canopies: Modeling and validation in the context of precision agriculture. Remote Sens. Environ. 2004, 90, 337–352. [CrossRef]
Kross, A.; McNairn, H.; Lapen, D.; Sunohara, M.; Champagne, C. Assessment of RapidEye vegetation indices for estimation of leaf area index and biomass in corn and soybean crops. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2015, 34, 235–248. [CrossRef]
Shang, J.; Liu, J.; Huffman, T.; Qian, B.; Pattey, E.; Wang, J.; Zhao, T.; Geng, X.; Kroetsch, D.; Dong, T.; et al. Estimating plant area index for monitoring crop growth dynamics using Landsat-8 and RapidEye images. J. Appl. Remote Sens. 2014, 8, 85196. [CrossRef]
Liu, J.; Pattey, E.; Miller, J.R.; McNairn, H.; Smith, A.; Hu, B. Estimating crop stresses, aboveground dry biomass and yield of corn using multi-temporal optical data combined with a radiation use efficiency model. Remote Sens. Environ. 2010, 114, 1167–1177. [CrossRef]
Shanahan, J.F.; Schepers, J.S.; Francis, D.D.; Varvel, G.E.; Wilhelm, W.W.; Tringe, J.M.; Schlemmer, M.R.; Major, D.J. Use of Remote-Sensing Imagery to Estimate Corn Grain Yield. Agron. J. 2001, 93, 583–589. [CrossRef]
Moquet, A.; De Longueville, F.; Tychon, B.; Hoffmann, L. Towards an Operational Hyperspectral Indicator to Detect Over-Fertilization of Maize Crop; Politique scientifique fédérale: Brussels, Belgium, 2005.
De Longueville, F.; Tychon, B.; Touré, S.; Moquet, A.; Hoffmann, L.; Ledent, J.-F.; Foucart, G. Hyperspectral Derived Nitrogen Indicators for Maize Crop (HYNIM). Rapport Final; Politique scientifique fédérale: Brussels, Belgium, 2005.
Goel, P.; Prasher, S.O.; Landry, J.; Patel, R.; Bonnell, R.; Viau, A.; Miller, J. Potential of airborne hyperspectral remote sensing to detect nitrogen deficiency and weed infestation in corn. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2003, 38, 99–124. [CrossRef]
Pattey, E.; Strachan, I.B.; Boisvert, J.; Desjardins, R.; McLaughlin, N. Detecting effects of nitrogen rate and weather on corn growth using micrometeorological and hyperspectral reflectance measurements. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2001, 108, 85–99. [CrossRef]
Strachan, I.B.; Pattey, E.; Boisvert, J.B. Impact of nitrogen and environmental conditions on corn as detected by hyperspectral reflectance. Remote Sens. Environ. 2002, 80, 213–224. [CrossRef]
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); German Weather Service (DWD); Grieser, J. New LocClim 1.10—Local Climate Estimator; Chief, Publishing Management Service, Information Division: Rome, Italy, 2006.
Kjeldahl, J. Neue Methode zur Bestimmung des Stickstoffs in organischen Körpern. Z. Anal. Chem. 1883, 22, 366–382. [CrossRef]
Walkley, A.; Black, I.A. An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci. 1934, 37, 29–38. [CrossRef]
apogee Chlorophyll Content Meter, CCM-200 plus. CCM-200 plus user manual. None published.
CAN-EYE. CAN-EYE Software Documentation, Output Variables. Definitions and Theoretical Background. October 2006, Updated July 2014. 2006. Available online: http://jecam.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Variables_Meaning_CAN_EYE.pdf (accessed on 24 November 2020).
Watson, D.J. Comparative Physiological Studies on the Growth of Field Crops: I. Variation in Net Assimilation Rate and Leaf Area between Species and Varieties, and within and between Years. Ann. Bot. 1947, 11, 41–76. [CrossRef]
ASD Inc. FieldSpec®3 User Manual. ASD Document 600540 Rev. J.; ASD Inc.: Boulder, CO, USA, 2010.
ASD Inc. ViewSpec ProTM User Manual. ASD Document 600555 Rev. A.; ASD Inc.: Boulder, CO, USA, 2008.
Opti-Sciences Inc. CCM-200 Chlorophyll Content Meter; Instruction Booklet; Opti-Sciences Inc.: Hudson, NH, USA, 2002.
Zarco-Tejada, P.J.; Berjón, A.; Miller, J.R. Stress detection in crops with hyperspectral remote sensing and physical simulation models. In Proceedings of the Airborne Imaging Spectroscopy Workshop, Bruges, Belgium, 8 October 2004.
Gitelson, A.A.; Merzlyak, M.N. Remote sensing of chlorophyll concentration in higher plant leaves. Adv. Space Res. 1998, 22, 689–692. [CrossRef]
Haralick, R.M.; Shanmugam, K.; Dinstein, I. Textural Features for Image Classification. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 1973, 3, 610–621. [CrossRef]
Haralick, R.M. Statistical and structural approaches to texture. Proc. IEEE 1979, 67, 786–804. [CrossRef]
Conners, R.W.; Harlow, C.A. A Theoretical Comparison of Texture Algorithms. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 1980, PAMI-2, 204–222. [CrossRef]
Fawcett, T. An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recognit. Lett. 2006, 27, 861–874. [CrossRef]
He, H.; Garcia, E.A. Learning from Imbalanced Data. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 2009, 21, 1263–1284. [CrossRef]
Flach, P.; Hernández-Orallo, J.; Ferri, C. A coherent interpretation of AUC as a measure of aggregated classification performance. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Machine Learning, Bellevue, WA, USA, 28 June–2 July 2011.
Seshan, V.E.; Gonen, M.; Begg, C.B. Comparing ROC curves derived from regression models. Stat. Med. 2013, 32, 1483–1493. [CrossRef]
Saito, T.; Rehmsmeier, M. The Precision-Recall Plot Is More Informative than the ROC Plot When Evaluating Binary Classifiers on Imbalanced Datasets. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0118432. [CrossRef]
Sing, T.; Sander, O.; Beerenwinkel, N.; Lengauer, T. Package ‘ROCR’ Visualizing the Performance of Scoring Classifiers. 2015. Available online: https://ipa-tys.github.io/ROCR/(accessed on 24 November 2020).
Sing, T.; Sander, O.; Beerenwinkel, N.; Lengauer, T. ROCR: Visualizing classifier performance in R. Bioinformatics 2005, 21, 3940–3941. [CrossRef]
Wilcoxon, F. Individual Comparisons by Ranking Methods. Biom. Bull. 1945, 1, 80–83. [CrossRef]
Mann, H.B.; Whitney, D.R. On a Test of Whether one of Two Random Variables is Stochastically Larger than the Other. Ann. Math. Stat. 1947, 18, 50–60. [CrossRef]
Kirk, R.E. Statistics. An Introduction, 5th ed.; Thomson Wadsworth: Belmont, CA, USA, 2008; ISBN 978-0-534-56478-0.
Moore, D.S.; Notz, W.I.; Fligner, M.A. The Basic Practice of Statistics, 6th ed.; W. H. Freeman: New York, NY, USA, 2013; ISBN 13: 978-1-4641-0254-7.
Bamber, D. The area above the ordinal dominance graph and the area below the receiver operating characteristic graph. J. Math. Psychol. 1975, 12, 387–415. [CrossRef]
Hanley, J.A.; McNeil, B.J. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 1982, 143, 29–36. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Mason, S.J.; Graham, N.E. Areas beneath the relative operating characteristics (ROC) and relative operating levels (ROL) curves: Statistical significance and interpretation. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 2002, 128, 2145–2166. [CrossRef]
Verhoef, W. Light scattering by leaf layers with application to canopy reflectance modeling: The SAIL model. Remote Sens. Environ. 1984, 16, 125–141. [CrossRef]
