Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

Karthikeyan2020 PDF

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 22

Journal of Hydrology 586 (2020) 124905

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Hydrology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhydrol

Research papers

A review of remote sensing applications in agriculture for food security: T


Crop growth and yield, irrigation, and crop losses

L. Karthikeyana,b, Ila Chawlac, Ashok K. Mishrab,
a
Centre of Studies in Resources Engineering, IIT Bombay, Powai, Mumbai, India
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Clemson, SC, USA
c
Interdisciplinary Centre for Water Research (ICWaR), Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

This manuscript was handled by G. Syme, The global population is expected to reach 9.8 billion by 2050. There is an exponential growth of food pro-
Editor-in-Chief duction to meet the needs of the growing population. However, the limited land and water resources, climate
Keywords: change, and an increase in extreme events likely to pose a significant threat for achieving the sustainable
Agriculture agriculture goal. Given these challenges, food security is included in the United Nations’ Sustainable
Remote sensing Development Goals (SDGs). Since the advent of Sputnik, followed by the Explorer missions, satellite remote
Crop yield sensing is assisting us in collecting the data at global scales. In this work, we review how satellite remote sensing
Data assimilation information is utilized to assess and manage agriculture, an important component of ecohydrology. Overall,
Irrigation
three critical aspects of agriculture are considered: (a) crop growth and yield through empirical models, physics-
Crop losses
based models, and data assimilation in crop models, (b) applications pertaining to irrigation, which include
mapping irrigation areas and quantification of irrigation, and (c) crop losses due to pests, diseases, crop lodging,
and weeds. The emphasis is on satellite sensors in optical, thermal, microwave, and fluorescence frequencies. We
conclude the review with an outlook of challenges and recommendations. This paper is the first of a two-part
review series. The second part reviews the role of satellite remote sensing in water security, wherein we discuss
the aspects of water quality and quantity along with extremes (floods and droughts).

1. Introduction fao.org/). The irrigated cropland areas increased from 63 million Ha


(MHa) in 1900 to 306 MHa in 2005 globally (Siebert et al. 2015). The
The global food security is recognized as a part of the Sustainable irrigated agricultural areas are estimated to use around two-third of the
Development Goals (SDGs; SDG2 in particular) by the United Nations total water reserves globally, which accounts for about 80–90% of the
(United Nations, 2015) through an increase in sustainable agriculture total water consumption (Doell et al. 2014; Oki and Kanae 2006;
production, a decrease in food losses and waste, improved nutrition, Shiklomanov and Rodda 2004).
and ensuring zero hunger. Over the past few decades, the global po- Despite the expansion in agricultural areas, food security may
pulation has exceeded 7.5 billion, with the majority of the population continue to be a problem in the developing nations due to improper
residing in the urban areas (Klein Goldewijk et al. 2010). However, management of resources and policies related to the pricing of food and
according to USDA (https://www.usda.gov/topics/food-and-nutrition/ irrigation water use (Calzadilla et al. 2013; Easterling and Apps 2005;
food-security), 700 million people across 76 countries are still food Scholes and Biggs 2004). The effects of anthropogenic climate change
insecure. The increasing population has put immense pressure on food may further influence the crop yield, thereby hampering the manage-
and water resources. Global food production must increase by 50% to ment of the food and water systems in the near future (Easterling and
meet the demands of the projected world population by 2050 Apps 2005). The extreme events such as floods and droughts strongly
(Chakraborty and Newton 2011; Godfray et al. 2010; Tilman et al. influence the four factors, namely, availability of food, access to safe
2011). To ensure food security for the growing population, there has food, food prices, and the sustainable food utilization, which regulate
been a dramatic expansion in the cropland areas and the irrigation the global food security (Brown et al. 2015). The changing climate
water requirement (Tilman et al. 2011). From 1961 to 2004, the total conditions can induce prolonged droughts in the future, which can in-
area under cultivation increased by 2.3 times globally (http://faostat. crease the crop dependency on groundwater resources for irrigation,


Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ashokm@g.clemson.edu (A.K. Mishra).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.124905

Available online 30 March 2020


0022-1694/ © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
L. Karthikeyan, et al. Journal of Hydrology 586 (2020) 124905

thereby affecting their sustainability (Scanlon et al. 2012). The re- 2. Overview of satellite remote sensing
miniscence of these effects is already evident through an increase in the
groundwater depletion globally from 1960 to 2000 (Wada et al. 2010). Satellite remote sensing emerged as a successor of aerial remote
Climate change can also lead to a reversal of croplands from irrigated to sensing during the 1960 s with the Explorer, TIROS (Television Infrared
rainfed agricultural systems, which can significantly impact food pro- Observation Satellite) series, Corona, and later with Landsat missions,
duction (Elliott et al. 2014). The deficit in irrigation may result in among others (Lettenmaier et al., 2015). The process of remote sensing
wilting of plants, which ultimately reduces the crop yield. is initiated with electromagnetic radiations from the Sun (passive re-
On the other hand, excess irrigation can also impede the crop mote sensing) or from the satellite itself (active remote sensing). The
growth in the forms of lack of sufficient air for respiration (thereby incident radiations are reflected, absorbed and transmitted while in-
affecting the germination of seeds), increase in salinity due to eva- teracting with the Earth’s surface. The satellite sensor measures these
poration of standing water and crop lodging (Chen et al., 2011; reflected radiations, which contain information about the terrestrial
Wichelns and Qadir, 2015). Apart from these factors, pests and diseases processes taking place during the overpass of the satellite at a location.
may significantly reduce crop productivity (Oerke 2006), further The terrestrial processes include the components of the hydrological
adding to the global food insecurity. Besides, the recent changes in the cycle, vegetation processes, interactions with water bodies, geomor-
dietary requirements and production of biofuels on the croplands have phology, and topography. Each of the terrestrial processes could be
added to the existing pressure on the food resources (Godfray et al. sensitive to measurements in only specific wavelengths/frequencies. So,
2010). Therefore, given the growing food demands and changing cli- it is essential to identify the satellite sensors that are appropriate for the
mate, wise management of depleting water resources through improved purpose. Furthermore, the satellite measurements are also influenced
irrigation and storage provisions along with flood/drought resistance by spatial, temporal, spectral and radiometric resolutions, which are
crop varieties may contribute towards sustainable agriculture practices associated with sensor configuration.
and maintain food security (Carruthers et al. 1997; Ozdogan 2011). Satellites sensors record the reflected radiations across various wa-
velengths of the electromagnetic spectrum. These wavelengths typically
range from visible/optical spectrum (0.4–0.7 μm wavelength); infrared
1.1. Necessity of satellite remote sensing spectrum – consisting of three bands, near infrared (NIR) (0.7–1.3 μm
wavelength), mid infrared (MIR) (1.3–3.0 μm wavelength), and thermal
Food security is a broad subject and requires monitoring of several infrared (TIR) (3.0–14 μm wavelength); and microwave spectrum
indicators, such as crop growth and crop yield, irrigation, and the (1 mm-1 m wavelength). In this section, we present a list of satellite
spread of diseases. To achieve this, direct or indirect measurement of sensors that belong to the optical/thermal spectrum (Table 1), micro-
several variables in space–time is required. Satellite remote sensing, in wave spectrum – which are categorized under active microwave sensors
addition to the in-situ observation network, is being increasingly used (Table 2) and passive microwave sensors (Table 3), and gravity field
to provide information on these variables at multiple spatial and tem- sensors (Table 4). These tables also contain information on duration,
poral scales, independent of geopolitical boundaries. Although the in- spatial and temporal resolutions of satellite sensors.
situ data is most accurate, their spatial coverage is inadequate and it is
often expensive to deploy radars and sensors to improve their spatio- 3. Remote sensing for food security
temporal resolutions, especially in developing countries. The remotely
sensed data is often used to retrieve variations in the vegetation state by Agriculture is one of the essential sectors to support the livelihood
providing realistic information on photosynthesis, phenology, dis- of humans and livestock. Its growth is imperative for the growth of the
turbances, recovery, and human interventions. This information is cri- economy and the alleviation of poverty. With the advent of technology
tical for determining crop health and productivity and serves as an and improvements in pesticides and fertilizers, modern agricultural
essential measure for agriculture planning and management. practices have significantly increased crop yields compared to that of
As discussed earlier, food security is intrinsically affected by the traditional agricultural practices (Hazell and Wood 2007). Satellite
water cycle. Water cycle, in turn, receives feedback from vegetation as remote sensing provides efficient means to monitor agriculture at large
transpiration. The objective of this study is to review the satellite re- spatial scales. The following sections present remote sensing applica-
mote sensing for sustainable agriculture management as well as some tions in three aspects of food security, crop growth assessment, irriga-
recent developments that have taken place to monitor and improve tion, and crop losses.
crop management. This review can be characterized under the broad
spectrum of ecohydrology, which studies about soil water-plant inter- 3.1. Crop growth assessment
actions along with plant water stress and productivity (Hsiao, 1973;
Nilsen & Orcutt, 1996; Vico & Porporato, 2015). Food production is the Crop yield is generally used to represent the outcome of agriculture.
biggest anthropogenic consumer of water (D'Odorico et al., 2010). So, It is defined as the weight of crop output (e.g., grain, fruit) at certain
besides understanding the process of irrigation (which is directly re- soil moisture content per unit harvested area of the crop (Fischer 2015).
lated to the field of water resources), it is also important to study the Crop yield is dependent on meteorological conditions, water and nu-
crop productivity and the associated stresses. Three important aspects trient availability, and the amount of absorbed photosynthetically ac-
are addressed in this review, 1) monitoring crop growth and yield as- tive radiation (aPAR). Crops should be supplied with the above inputs
sessment, 2) qualitative and quantitative assessment of irrigation, and and protected from pests and diseases in order to produce expected
3) detecting crop losses due to pests, diseases, crop lodging, and weeds. yield. In this process, there is a need for continuous monitoring of crop
Fig. 1 presents a detailed schematic diagram of these selected areas and growth. Here we present the critical variables necessary to monitor crop
the sub-topics reviewed in this work. This review is the first of the two- growth.
part review series, wherein the second part reviews the applications of The aPAR of the crop depends on the incoming solar radiation and
satellite remote sensing for water security, which includes the aspects of the crop’s photosynthetically active radiation interception capability,
water quality, quantity, and extreme events (Chawla et al., 2020). which is mainly influenced by the leaf area (Rembold et al. 2013).
Section 2 presents an overview of satellite remote sensing along with a Besides, the fraction of absorbed photosynthetically active radiation
list of satellites, which find applications in this review. Section 3 pre- (fPAR), a widely used variable, normalizes aPAR with the amount of
sents a review of the three selected areas. Section 4 presents the outlook incident solar radiation. The fPAR further influences a) Gross Primary
of this review. Productivity (GPP) – the rate at which plant absorbs the incident ra-
diation during the photosynthesis, and b) Net Primary Productivity

2
L. Karthikeyan, et al. Journal of Hydrology 586 (2020) 124905

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the review of the role of remote sensing applications for agriculture management.

(NPP) – the rate at which the absorbed energy is stored as plant bio- and incident PAR), NDVI can be related to crop yield (Baret and Guyot
mass. GPP and NPP are expressed in the units of weight of carbon per 1991; Groten 1993; Prince 1991). In addition to NDVI, some more
unit area per unit time (generally gC m2 yr ). The GPP, in a way, vegetation indices are proposed in the past in order to address the issues
measures the accumulated photosynthesis during the crop growth. Both about atmospheric effects and canopy background, among others
crop yield and crop biomass are measured as weight per area (generally (Gitelson 2004). Some of them include Enhanced Vegetation Index
kg/hectare or tons/hectare). The Light Use Efficiency (LUE) is the ef- (EVI) (Liu and Huete 1995), Normalized Difference Water Index
ficiency with which the plant converts aPAR to NPP (NDWI) (Gao 1996), two-band EVI (EVI2) (Jiang et al. 2008), and
(NPP = aPAR × LUE ) (Monteith 1977). Green-Red Vegetation Index (GRVI) (Motohka et al. 2010). Additional
The Leaf Area Index (LAI), defined as the ratio between the one- vegetation indices can be found in the agricultural drought section of
sided green leaf area and ground surface area, is used to assess the leaf part two of this review series (Chawla et al., 2020). In the past, the
characteristics and crop biomass (Mulla 2013). It influences the canopy timeseries of vegetation indices have been used to monitor crop growth.
reflectance. Typically, LAI ranges between 0 (bare ground) to more Lunetta et al. (2010) used MODIS NDVI data to assess the cropping
than 10 (evergreen coniferous forests) (Iio et al. 2014). Recently, Solar patterns in the Laurentian Great Lakes Basin. Skakun et al. (2017) used
Induced Chlorophyll Fluorescence (SIF), an indicator of plant photo- MODIS NDVI data along with air temperature information from
synthetic activity, is used to study plant productivity (Guanter et al. MERRA2 reanalysis product to carry out winter crop mapping in Kansas
2014). The indicators discussed here are widely used to study plant (USA) and Ukraine. Tao et al. (2017) assessed spatio-temporal varia-
growth with remote sensing (Bartlett et al. 1988; Fassnacht et al. 1997; tions in the crop frequency using MODIS NDVI and EVI data along with
Shibayama et al. 1993; Thenkabail et al. 1994; Wiegand and ancillary information in Hubei province (China).
Richardson 1990). The methods to estimate these indicators using re-
mote sensing information can be classified broadly into three cate-
3.1.1.1. Crop yield estimation using vegetation indices. In the case of crop
gories: 1) regression-based methods, 2) physics-based methods.
yield estimation, the plethora of literature indicated the existence of the
strong relationship between crop yield and vegetation indices
3.1.1. Regression-based methods (Anderson et al. 1993a; Shanahan et al. 2001; Tucker et al. 1980;
Remote sensing of crop yield relies on crop spectral properties, Wiegand and Richardson 1990; Wylie et al. 1991). Several of these
which vary according to the growth stage of the crop, type of crop, and works established a regression relationship between vegetation index
its health. During the 1970 s, field and airborne remote sensing cam- and observed crop yield and later used the relationship to predict crop
paigns are conducted to monitor the vegetation and crop yield (Collins yield with new vegetation index information. For instance, Bolton and
1978; Tucker, 1979; Tucker and Maxwell 1976). These efforts have Friedl (2013) setup linear regression between county-level yield and
resulted in the development of vegetation indices, which are functions MODIS NDVI, EVI2, and NDWI in the Central United States. The crop
of spectral reflectance from specific wavelengths (recorded by the re- yield information is obtained from data compiled by the United States
mote sensor). Specifically, the vegetation is found to be very reflective Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Agricultural Statistics
and absorptive in the near infra-red (NIR) and red bands. Therefore, Service (NASS). Recently, Tuvdendorj et al. (2019) found that a
some combination of these reflectivities from these two bands will be combination of NDWI, NDVI, and visible and shortwave infrared
sensitive to the vegetation dynamics (Sellers 1987; Tucker, 1979). drought index (VSDI) (Zhang et al. 2013) among nine considered
Among these indices, Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) vegetation indices performs best when linearly regressed with spring
(Rouse et al., 1974) is perhaps the most widely used index to monitor wheat yield.
vegetation health and dynamics. Given its strong relationship with LAI Our review of the literature indicated that most of the works have
and fraction of absorbed PAR (fPAR; the ratio between absorbed PAR aggregated the vegetation index over a period of time and then related

3
L. Karthikeyan, et al.

Table 1
List of satellites with optical/thermal sensors and their configurations. Note that the table is not exhaustive. We present only the sensors that are included as a part of this review.
Satellite Sensor Duration Frequency Range (Number of Spatial Resolution Temporal
Bands) Resolution

Landsat Multispectral Scanner System (MSS) 1972 – present 500 nm – 1.1 µm (4 for Landsat 1,2,3, 57 m, or 60 m 18 days, 16 days
4, and 5)
Thematic Mapper (TM) and Enhanced Thematic Mapper (ETM) 1972 – present 450 nm – 2.35 µm; 10.4 – 12.5 µm (7 30 m, 120 m 16 days
for Landsat 4, and 5; 8 for Landsat 7)
NIMBUS-7 Coastal Zone Color Scanner (CZCS) 1978 – 1995 433 nm – 12.5 µm (6) 825 m 6 days
Satellite pour l'Observation de la Terre (SPOT) High Resolution Visible (HRV) 1986–2009 500 nm – 900 nm (4) 20 m 26 days
High Resolution Visible and Infra-red (HRVIR) 1998 – 2013 500 nm – 1.75 µm (4) 20 m; 10 m 26 days
Vegetation 1998 – 2015 430 nm – 1.75 µm (4) 1 km 26 days
IKONOS Multispectral Sensor; Panchromatic Sensor 1999–2015 445 – 900 nm (5) 3.2 m, 0.82 m 3 days
Terra, Aqua Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) 2000 – present 400 nm – 14.4 µm (36) 250 m, 500 m, and 1 km 16 days
Earth Observatory-1 Hyperion 2000–2017 390 nm – 2.5 µm (2 2 0) 30 m 16 days

4
QuickBird Multispectral Sensor; Panchromatic Sensor 2001–2015 450 – 900 nm 2.62 m, 0.65 m 1 – 3.5 days
ENVISAT Medium Resolution Imaging Specrometer Instrument (MERIS) 2002 – 2012 390 – 1040 nm (15) 300 m; 1200 m 35 days
Meteosat Second Generation (MSG) geostationary Spinning Enhanced Visible and Infrared Imager (SEVIRI) 2004 – present 0.4 – 1.6 µm (4; visible/NIR); 3.9 – 1 km; 3 km –
satellites 13.4 µm (8 IR)
METOP-A/B Global Ozone Monitoring Experiment-2 (GOME-2) 2006 – present 240 – 790 nm (0.26–0.51 nm spectral 80 km × 40 km 1.5 days
resolution)
WorldView-1/2/3/4 Panchromatic, multispectral, SWIR sensors 2007 – present 450–800 nm (panchromatic) 0.31 m (panchromatic), 1.24 m < 1 day
400–1040 nm (8; multispectral) (multispectral), 3.7 m (SWIR)
1195–2365 nm (8; SWIR)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) 2009 and 2012 – 580 nm – 12.5 µm (6) 1.1 km; 4 km 1 day
Administration's (NOAA's) Polar Orbiting present
Environmental Satellites (POES)
NOAA-20 Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) 2011-present 412 nm – 12.01 µm (22) 375 m, 750 m 16 days
Sentinel 2A and 2B Multi-Spectral Imager (MSI) 2015 and 2017 – 440 nm – 2.19 µm (12) 60 m, 20 m and 10 m 5 days
present
Greenhouse gases Observing SATellite (GOSAT) Thermal And Near Infrared Sensor for carbon Observation - Fourier 2018 – present 750 nm – 2.38 µm (4) 500, 1500 m 3 days
Transform Spectrometer (TANSO-FTS); Thermal And Near Infrared
Sensor for carbon Observation - Cloud and Aerosol Imager (TANSO-
CAI-2)
Journal of Hydrology 586 (2020) 124905
Table 2
List of satellites with active microwave sensors and their configurations. Note that the table is not exhaustive. We present only the sensors that are included as a part of this review.
Satellite Sensor Duration Frequency Range (Number Spatial Resolution Temporal Resolution
of Bands)
L. Karthikeyan, et al.

ENVISAT Advanced Synthetic Aperture 2002 – 2012 5.3 GHz (1) 30 m 35 days; 30 days (from
Radar (ASAR) 2010)
COSMO-SkyMed SAR 2000 2007 - present 9.60 GHz (1) 1 m (SPOTLIGHT); 5 m (STRIPMAP-HIMAGE); 15 m (STRIPMAP-PINGPONG); 30 m 16 days
(SCANSAR-WIDEREGION); 100 m (SCANSAR-HUGEREGION)
MetOp-A/B Advanced SCATterometer (ASCAT) 2007 – present 5.225 GHz (1) 25 km 1–2 days
RADARSAT-2 Synthetic Aperture Radar (C-band) 2007 – present 5.405 GHz (1) 3–100 m 24 days
TerraSAR-X SAR-X 2007 – present 9.65 GHz (1) 1.1 m (SPOTLIGHT); 3.3 m (STRIPMAP); 18.5 m (SCANSAR) 11 days
TanDEM-X SAR-X 2010 – present 9.65 GHz (1) 1.1 m (SPOTLIGHT); 3.3 m (STRIPMAP); 18.5 m (SCANSAR) 11 days
RISAT-1 C Band Synthetic Aperture Radar 2012–2017 5.35 GHz (1) 1 – 50 m 25 days
(SAR)
Sentinel 1A and 1B C-band Synthetic Aperture Radar 2014 and 2016 – 5.405 GHz 5 m × 5 m (stripmap mode), 5 m × 20 m (interferometric wide swath mode), and 12 days
present 25 m × 100 m (extra-wide swath mode); 5 m × 20 m (wave mode)

*indicates footprint

5
Table 3
List of satellites with passive microwave sensors and their configurations. Note that the table is not exhaustive. We present only the sensors that are included as a part of this review.
Satellite Sensor Duration Frequency Range (Number of Spatial Resolution Temporal
Bands) Resolution

Aqua Advanced Microwave Scanning 2002–2011 6.925 GHz; 10.65 GHz; 18.7 GHz; 56 km (6.925 GHz); 38 km (10.65 GHz); 21 km (18.7 GHz); 24 km 1–2 days
Radiometer-Earth Observing System 23.8 GHz; 36.5 GHz; 89.0 GHz (6) (23.8 GHz); 12 km (36.5 GHz);5.4 km (89 GHz)
(EOS) (AMSR-E)
Microwave Imaging Radiometer using Soil Moisture Ocean Salinity (SMOS) L- 2010 – present 1.4 GHz (1) < 50 km 2.5–3 days
Aperture Synthesis (MIRAS) band radiometer
GCOM-W Advanced Microwave Scanning 2012 – present 6.93 GHz; 7.3 GHz; 10.65 GHz; 62 × 35 km (6.93 GHz); 62 × 35 km (7.3 GHz); 42 × 24 km (10.65 GHz); 1–2 days
Radiometer 2 (AMSR2) 18.7 GHz; 23.8 GHz; 36.5 GHz; 22 × 14 km (18.7 GHz); 19 × 11 km (23.8 GHz); 12 × 7 km (36.5 GHz);
89 GHz 5 × 3 km (89 GHz)
Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP) SMAP L-band radiometer 2015 – present 1.4 GHz (1) 47 × 39 km 1–3 days
Journal of Hydrology 586 (2020) 124905
L. Karthikeyan, et al. Journal of Hydrology 586 (2020) 124905

to the corresponding crop yield instead of using instantaneous (satellite


Temporal Resolution
overpass) observations. This is because the nature of dependency be-
tween crop yield and spectral reflectance varies with crop growth
(Labus et al. 2002; Rudorff and Batista 1990). Besides, temporal in-
tegration or aggregation of vegetation indices reduce the noise due to
30 days
30 days

other factors (such as effects due to soils and clouds) in the vegetation
responses. They also account for the total effect of photosynthesis
(Benedetti and Rossini 1993; Rudorff and Batista 1990). The aggrega-
tion can be carried out by considering the maximum value of vegetation
Spatial Resolution

index, mean of peak values of vegetation index, the summation of ve-


getation index values in a crop cycle, vegetation index during the end of
List of satellites that measure the gravity field and their configurations. Note that the table is not exhaustive. We present only the sensors that are included as a part of this review.

the season, among others. In this context, Funk and Budde (2009) in-
400 km
400 km

dicated that NDVI accumulated during the mid-to-late season has a


better correlation with the crop yield compared to other aggregation
methods. Quarmby et al. (1993) used smoothened AVHRR (Advanced
Very-High-Resolution Radiometer) NDVI integrated over the growing
season for estimation of crop yield of wheat, cotton, rice, and maize
Frequency Range (Number of Bands)

crops through linear regression. Liu and Kogan (2002) used AVHRR
Vegetation Condition Index (VCI) (Kogan, 1995) to monitor soybean
crop production in Brazil. In this work, the authors considered the ratio
of observed yield and trend yield (to account for technological im-
provements and an increase in food demand) as yield indicator. Lai
et al. (2018) estimated wheat yield as a function of integrated Landsat
24 GHz; 32 GHz
24 GHz; 32 GHz

NDVI (obtained during the growing season) with reasonable accuracy


in the northern grain-growing region (NGR) of Australia. Mirasi et al.
(2019) used the sum of Landsat 8 Operational Land Imager (OLI) NDVI
values (during the growing period) as an indicator to estimate wheat
yield in Iran. Their results indicated that the model simulates yield at
the highest accuracy 49 days before harvesting during which wheat
grains would turn milky matured.
2018 – present

Some studies also used a non-linear regression approach to estimate


2002 – 2017

crop yield using vegetation index (Hayes and Decker 1996; Holzapfel
Duration

et al. 2009; Ma et al. 2001; Mkhabela et al. 2011). Attempts have also
been made to consider meteorological variables along with vegetation
index as predictors in the statistical regression model to estimate the
crop yield (Balaghi et al. 2008; Cai et al. 2019; Johnson 2014; Prasad
et al. 2006; Shao et al. 2015).
K-Band Ranging (KBR) twin-satellite system
K-Band Ranging (KBR) twin-satellite system

3.1.1.2. LAI estimation using vegetation indices. Estimation of LAI using


remote sensing techniques generally involved optical and microwave
sensors. Early studies have used local-scale (field) measurements to
linearly relate LAI with spectral reflectance information (Asrar et al.
1985; Gallo and Daughtry 1987; Gardner and Blad 1986). These works
tested the applicability of NDVI and ratio vegetation indices (RVI; by
considering various plausible wavelength combinations) (Pearson and
Miller 1972). Johnson (2003) established linear regression between
Ikonos NDVI and in-situ LAI in a Napa Valley vineyard. Fan et al.
Sensor

(2009) established linear and exponential relationships between NDVI


and LAI using in-situ measurements over grasslands in Mongolia.

3.1.1.3. Use of hyperspectral vegetation indices. Despite the popularity of


Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE)

NDVI, the literature indicates that the NDVI values tend to saturate
when the LAI values are very high (greater than 8) (Baret and Guyot
1991; Gu et al. 2013; Houborg et al. 2007; Wang et al. 2018). Gitelson
(2004) attempted to reduce the effect of saturation by proposing a new
index called the Wide Dynamic Range Vegetation Index (WDVI).
Furthermore, hyperspectral vegetation indices have also exhibited an
ability to reduce the saturation effect (Fang et al. 2019). The
hyperspectral sensors also measure the reflectance from the red-edge
GRACE-Follow-On (FO)

vegetation spectrum – which is the sharp slope between low reflectance


red spectrum and high reflectance NIR spectrum – situated between 350
and 1050 nm wavelength (Darvishzadeh et al. 2009; Thenkabail et al.
2000). Some of the vegetation indices that consider red-edge spectrum
Satellite

include Red-edge normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI-RE)


Table 4

(Gitelson and Merzlyak, 1994), Chlorophyll index Red-edge (CI-RE)


(Gitelson et al., 2003), and Modified simple ratio Red-edge (R-RE) (Wu

6
L. Karthikeyan, et al. Journal of Hydrology 586 (2020) 124905

et al. 2008). Several studies have indicated a strong relationship of the PROSAIL model (Berger et al. 2018).
between the red-edge inflection point (wavelength where the Retrieval of crop parameters such as LAI through these physics-
maximum slope of spectral reflectance is attained) and LAI of crops based models involves model inversion wherein the set of inputs that
(Delegido et al. 2013; Dong et al. 2019; Gupta et al. 2003; Herrmann can minimize the error between simulated model atmosphere corrected
et al. 2011; Liu et al. 2004). Kira et al. (2016) ascertained that red-edge reflectance and remotely sensed reflectance are estimated. Dorigo et al.
and NIR bands to be most informative for LAI estimation. Besides, (2007) noted three kinds of model inversion schemes, 1) model opti-
several narrow-band vegetation indices are proposed that can mization, 2) lookup table approach (LUT), and 3) Artificial Neural
accurately model the crop yield and LAI information (Haboudane Networks (ANNs). For instance, Bacour et al. (2006) used ANNs to train
et al. 2004; Thenkabail et al. 2000). the synthetic data generated with the PROSAIL model and then re-
Attempts are made to compare the efficiency of multispectral and trieved LAI (along with other variables) using ENVISAT-MERIS re-
hyperspectral reflectances and associated vegetation indices towards flectance information. Li et al. (2015) used multi-objective genetic al-
the estimation of LAI and crop yield (Broge and Leblanc 2001; Lee et al. gorithms based inversion of the PROSAIL model to retrieve LAI of
2004; Mariotto et al. 2013; Thenkabail et al. 2002; Viña et al. 2011; winter wheat. Li et al. (2018) performed LUT inversion of the PROSAIL
Zhao et al. 2007). We find no consensus on which among the two sets of model to estimate LAI of winter wheat using China Centre for Resources
indices is more accurate. The accuracy of a vegetation index is found to Satellite Data and Application (CRESDA)’s GF-1 Wild Field Camera
be influenced primarily by the crop type, vegetation saturation, soil, (WFV) data. Despite the applicability of physics-based models over
and atmospheric effects, among others (Fang et al. 2019). Furthermore, larger areas, these models often suffer from the problem of equifinality,
sophisticated regression and machine learning techniques are also used i.e., possibility of the existence of multiple solutions that result in op-
to model crop yield and LAI using satellite sensor-based vegetation timality. Besides, model and observation uncertainties also result in the
indices. Some of them include partial least square regression (Hansen inversion to be an ill-posed problem. Several regularization schemes
and Schjoerring 2003; Li et al. 2014; Nguyen and Lee 2006), artificial including incorporating prior information about variables of interest
neural networks (ANN) (Johnson et al. 2016; Panda et al. 2010), sup- (for example, Combal et al. (2003)), have been proposed to circumvent
port vector machines (Durbha et al. 2007; Tuia et al. 2011), and the problem of equifinality in physics-based models (Atzberger 2004;
random forests (Liang et al. 2015; Wang et al. 2016). Recently, Wang Baret and Buis 2008; Rivera et al. 2013; Verrelst et al. 2013). Li et al.
et al. (2018) estimated rice LAI using all of the above techniques and (2015) used the prior knowledge of the empirical relationship between
found random forests to perform better. LAI and leaf chlorophyll content (LCC) to improve the PROSAIL model
inversion for the retrieval of winter wheat LAI.
3.1.2. Physics-based methods Regression and physics-based models (radiative transfer model in-
It is important to note that the above-described regression-based version) are used to obtain LAI products at global scales. Some of the
techniques are site-dependent and cannot be spatially transferrable. operational products include MODIS MCD15A3H Version 6 (Myneni
Due to this issue, these methods are only applicable at the local scale. et al. 2015; Myneni et al. 2002), EUMETSAT’s SEVIRI (Spinning En-
Moreover, it is generally not possible to determine multiple variables hanced Visible and Infra-red Imager) MSG (Meteosat Second Genera-
through these techniques (Dorigo et al. 2007). Large scale simulation of tion) LSA-423 (García-Haro et al. 2019), Visible Infrared Imaging
crop biophysical variables requires the incorporation of the physics of Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) VNP15A2H (Myneni and Knyazikhin 2018;
the process into the modeling strategy. Land surface covered with ve- Yan et al. 2018), and AVHRR LAI Version 4 (Claverie et al. 2016)
getation will have reflectance from three components, 1) individual among others. Fang et al. (2019) provide a comprehensive list of global
leaves, 2) canopy as a whole, and 3) soil type. Ideally, the physics-based LAI products.
models simulate reflectance from all the three components to estimate
the top-of-canopy reflectance. The top-of-canopy reflectance values si- 3.1.3. Assimilation of remote sensing data in crop simulation models
mulated from these models are then corrected for atmospheric effects – It can be noted that the physics-based models described above only
using an atmospheric radiative transfer model – to obtain top-of-at- consider the crop and soil-related parameters. Crop simulation models,
mosphere reflectance, which is comparable with measured satellite on the other hand, consider the changing meteorological conditions,
reflectance (Verhoef and Bach 2003; Vermote et al. 1997). agricultural practices along with crop and soil conditions to simulate
Leaf optical models and canopy reflectance models deal with si- crop yield, among other variables. Some of the widely used crop si-
mulating the scattering and absorption properties of leaves and canopy, mulation models include decision support system for agrotechnology
respectively. One of the widely used leaf optical models is the PROS- transfer (DSSAT – a package of multiple crop models) (Hoogenboom
PECT model (Jacquemoud and Baret 1990), which is a radiative et al. 2019; Jones et al. 2003), WOrld FOod Studies (WOFOST)
transfer model that simulates the optical properties of leaves in the (Boogaard et al. 1998; Van Diepen et al. 1989), Agricultural Production
wavelength range of 400–2500 nm. The PROSPECT model considers Systems sIMulator (APSIM) (Holzworth et al. 2014), Simulateur mul-
leaf mesophyll structure, pigment concentration, dry matter content, TIdisciplinaire pour les Cultures Standard (STICS) (Brisson et al. 2003),
and water content as inputs. PROSAIL-4 and PROSAIL-5 models are the model for nitrogen and carbon dynamics in agro-ecosystems (MONICA)
improved versions of the original model (Feret et al. 2008). Canopy (Nendel et al. 2011), Daisy model (Abrahamsen and Hansen 2000),
reflectance models are categorized into kernel-based, turbid-medium, AquaCrop model (Raes et al. 2009; Steduto et al. 2009), Environmental
geometrical, and computer simulation models (Fang et al. 2019). Of Policy Integrated Climate Model (EPIC) (Williams et al. 1989), SWAP
these models, turbid-medium models are used widely. These models (Soil, Water, Atmosphere and Plant) model (Kroes et al. 2009), and
consider leaves as “small, randomly distributed absorbing and scat- Crop Environment REsource Synthesis – CERES (wheat – Godwin
tering elements with no physical size” (Dorigo et al. 2007). The Scat- (1990); maize – Ritchie et al. (1989); barley – Otter-Nacke et al. (1991);
tering by Arbitrarily Inclined Leaves (SAIL) model (Verhoef 1984) is a rice – Singh et al. (1993)). Delécolle et al. (1992) noted three important
widely used canopy reflectance model. The SAIL model is a radiative characteristics of crop simulation models, 1) they can dynamically
transfer model, which considers primarily 1) canopy parameters (e.g., consider inputs at an interval and produce the outputs while updating
LAI and leaf angle distribution), 2) view and illumination parameters the state variables, 2) they contain parameters, which can be tuned
(e.g., view angle), 3) soil reflectance, and 4) leaf transmittance and according to the growth period and the crop species, and 3) they take
reflectance parameters as inputs to simulate canopy bidirectional re- into account the crop development. Applying crop models over large
flectance. The SAIL model, coupled with the PROSPECT model – in areas can be challenging due to immense data requirements. Moreover,
terms of providing leaf transmittance and reflectance – results in the there can be uncertainties associated with the input datasets that affect
PROSAIL model (Jacquemoud et al. 2009). Fig. 2 shows an illustration the quality of the outcome. Remotely sensed information has the

7
L. Karthikeyan, et al. Journal of Hydrology 586 (2020) 124905

Fig. 2. Illustration of the PROSAIL model (reproduced from Berger et al. (2018)). Readers may refer to Berger et al. (2018) for details on the symbols used in the
figure.

potential to address these issues. There are two ways of using remotely sensing can be used to retrieve surface soil moisture content. It is
sensed crop growth variables in the crop simulation models, 1) replace important to note that the backscatter or the brightness temperature at
them with model-simulated state variables to obtain output, and 2) use top-of-canopy contains the contributions from canopy and soil (e.g.,
them to tweak the model state variables thereby altering the output. refer to WCM in Section 3.1.5.1). Therefore, having an accurate soil
The second method is generally applied in a data assimilation frame- moisture information helps in separating these two contributions.
work. Several retrieval algorithms are available to retrieve soil moisture
from microwave observations (Karthikeyan et al. 2017; Wigneron
et al. 2017). For instance, Ines et al. (2013) assimilated AMSR-E soil
3.1.3.1. Assimilation of vegetation variables. In the process of using
moisture and MODIS LAI in a modified DSSAT crop simulation model
remote sensing information, studies have used either the readily
using EnKF to improve the yield estimation of maize crop. A similar
available products (discussed above) or used the state variables
attempt is made by Chakrabarti et al. (2014) in the context of SMOS to
retrieved from the canopy reflectance model or regression-based
improve the estimates of soybean yield. Wit and Van Diepen (2007)
model as an input to the crop simulation model. Some of the state
assimilated ERS 1/2 scatterometer based soil moisture product into the
variables, such as fPAR, LAI, canopy height, and above-ground biomass
WOFOST crop simulation model using EnKF to improve estimates of
used in crop simulation models, can be “corrected” using remote
winter wheat crop yield. Soil moisture from passive microwave sensors
sensing information (Dorigo et al. 2007). Doraiswamy et al. (2004)
is found to improve crop yield estimation (Mladenova et al. 2017).
and Doraiswamy et al. (2005) used Landsat and MODIS reflectance
Recently, Huang et al. (2019) and Jin et al. (2018) provided a
respectively as input to the SAIL model (which is driven by in-situ
comprehensive review of data assimilation techniques used in the
measured leaf reflectance data) to retrieve LAI, which is fed as input
crop simulation models.
along with weather and soil data to a simple climate-based crop model
to obtain crop yield map. While Doraiswamy et al. (2004) used
minimization of error between observed (in-situ) and simulated LAI
3.1.4. Crop yield assessment using remote sensing of plant photosynthetic
to tune the SAIL model, Doraiswamy et al. (2005) also considered error
activity
between observed (satellite) and simulated reflectance in the objective
Photosynthetic activity influences biomass production (Hofius and
function. A similar methodology is also implemented in other works
Börnke, 2007). Therefore, Solar Induced Fluorescence (SIF) can be a
(Migdall et al. 2009; Verhoef and Bach 2003).
direct indicator of crop yield, compared to the optical vegetation in-
It is important to note that by replacing the model simulated data
dices such as NDVI (which are responsive to only leaf area changes)
with the satellite retrievals, the satellite-based output is assumed to be
(Guan et al. 2016; Guanter et al. 2014). SIF can be retrieved using
completely free from errors. In case, this assumption is violated, the
physics-based radiative transfer models. For instance, the SAIL model is
quality of output from the crop models get affected. Data assimilation
modified to include a fluorescence component (Miller et al. 2003;
attempts to alleviate this issue by combining the satellite and simulated
Rosema et al. 1991). The model proposed by Miller et al. (2003) is
data by considering their error variance. So, the data assimilation
extended further to result in state-of-the-art Soil Canopy Observation,
scheme adjusts the state variable (e.g., LAI) simulated by the model
Photochemistry, and Energy fluxes (SCOPE) model (Tol et al. 2009).
based on satellite information. The modified state variable will alter the
Pacheco-Labrador et al. (2019) used ground measurements as input to
subsequent model fluxes (such as crop yield). Kalman filter (Kalman
retrieve SIF, GPP, among other variables by inverting the SCOPE model.
1960), Ensemble Kalman Filter (Evensen 2003), Particle Filter
Recently, radiative transfer models with the ray-tracing technique are
(Arulampalam et al. 2002; Gordon et al. 1993), Variational Data As-
proposed to simulate fluorescence from a three-dimensional vegetation
similation (Barker et al. 2004; Rawlins et al. 2007) are some of the
structure (suitable for crops) (Gastellu-Etchegorry et al. 2017; Zhao
widely used assimilation techniques. Liu et al. (2019) assimilated
et al. 2016). The detailed developments on the remote sensing of SIF are
AMSR-E and SMOS soil moisture into the DSSAT model and found
presented by Meroni et al. (2009) and Mohammed et al. (2019).
improvement in the accuracy of maize yield estimates in South Car-
Attempts are made to relate the remotely sensed SIF observations
olina, USA.
with GPP (Guanter et al. 2014; Hu et al. 2018; Liu et al. 2017). In one of
the earlier studies, Guan et al. (2016) estimated GPP empirically over
3.1.3.2. Assimilation of soil moisture. Apart from vegetation variables, the USA using Global Ozone Monitoring Experiment–2 (GOME-2) based
the information on soil moisture plays an essential role in the aspects of SIF data. Paul-Limoges et al. (2018) find that the type of diurnal re-
agricultural management, monitoring droughts, and crop yield lationship (linear or hyperbolic) between SIF and GPP is affected by the
assessment, among others. Active and passive microwave remote local environmental conditions. Somkuti et al. (2020) found a strong

8
L. Karthikeyan, et al. Journal of Hydrology 586 (2020) 124905

relationship between the Japanese Greenhouse gases Observing SA- Dunne et al. (2017) provided a comprehensive review of the develop-
Tellite (GOSAT) based SIF retrievals and crop yields of corn and soy- ments that modeled crop variables using airborne and ground-based
bean in the USA. The satellite SIF data is used to estimate the crop yield radars.
using statistical regression (Cai et al. 2019; Guan et al. 2017). Attempts Retrieval of crop variables from radar backscatter measurements
are now being made to couple the radiative transfer models that si- generally involve three kinds of models, 1) Water Cloud Model (WCM)
mulate SIF with biosphere models in an assimilation framework to (Attema and Ulaby 1978) – a semi-empirical model that assumes ca-
improve the accuracy of GPP simulations (Norton et al. 2018). nopy as a cloud with uniform water droplets randomly distributed
within the canopy, 2) energy and wave approaches – that involve
3.1.5. Crop yield assessment using microwave data physics of radiation interactions with vegetation, and 3) polarimetric
Satellite microwave sensors measure the electromagnetic radiations decompositions – that extract elementary scattering contributions from
emitted from the Earth's surface in the microwave spectrum. They can the total backscatter. We find that WCM is widely used in the literature
be classified into the active microwave (radar) and the passive micro- for modeling the crop variables. So, to keep the review concise, we limit
wave (radiometer) sensors. In the former case, the radar sends its beam the applications pertaining to only WCM. A detailed review of radar
of radiation towards the Earth's surface and measures the reflected backscatter applications in agriculture can be obtained from Steele-
signal in the form of backscatter coefficient (σ ° ). In the latter case, the Dunne et al. (2017). In WCM, the co-polarized backscatter coefficient
°
radiometer measures the naturally emitted electromagnetic radiations (σpp ) from vegetation is computed as a summation of backscatter con-
from the Earth's surface in the form of brightness temperature (TB ). ° °
tribution from vegetation (σveg ), soil (σsoil ), and their interactions (λ )
During this process, the microwave radiations get influenced by the (Eq. (1)).
dielectric properties of the target medium (e.g., vegetation, soil). ° ° °
Besides, these interactions are also influenced by the sensor config-
σpp = σveg + λ2σsoil (1)
uration, such as polarization, incidence angle, and frequency. In con- where,
trast with the optical sensors, microwave radiations can penetrate
°
through the clouds (essentially a transparent atmosphere, except during σveg = A·V1·cos θ ·(1 − λ2) (2)
heavy rainfall) and are also independent of solar illumination. The
following section presents the review of active and passive microwave λ2 = exp(−2·B·V2·sec θ) (3)
remote sensing in crop monitoring applications. °
σsoil = C + D·m v (4)
3.1.5.1. Use of active microwave remote sensing. Active microwave where, θ is the angle of incidence; A, B, C, and D are the empirical
(radar) remote sensing is used to retrieve crop variables, which parameters, which need to be tuned according to the local conditions; V1
include LAI, crop height, biomass, crop yield, and leaf structure. The and V2 are the functions of vegetation indicators (here crop variables).
radar backscatter measurements in higher frequencies (C and X bands) So, WCM simulates σpp °
as a function of the crop variable of interest and
necessarily look at the upper layers of the canopy, which suits the soil moisture along with four calibration parameters. Inoue et al. (2014)
retrieval of crop variables (Ulaby et al. 1984). L-band sensors, on the used C-band backscatter to establish a relationship with LAI and leaf
other hand, would have relatively greater penetration capability. So, biomass, and also retrieved LAI using WCM over rice fields in Japan.
the backscatter signal recorded by the sensors will have a significant Hosseini et al. (2015) estimated LAI using WCM in corn and soybean
effect due to soil, the effect of which needs to be separated to obtain with RADARSAT-2 (C-band) and Uninhabited Aerial Vehicle Synthetic
accurate retrieval. Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) is used generally for Aperture Radar (UAVSAR) (L-band) data. Chauhan et al. (2019b) at-
crop monitoring applications (Steele-Dunne et al. 2017). Experiments tempted to retrieve what crop height using RISAT-1 SAR data by cou-
have been carried out to assess the strength of relationship between pling WCM with ANN. They considered a variable that includes plant
backscatter coefficient and crop variables (Baghdadi et al. 2009; height and other plant variables as vegetation indicators in WCM. Their
Bouman and van Kasteren 1990a,b; Brakke et al. 1981; Canisius et al. study indicates that C-band backscatter is sensitive over corn and soy-
2018; Chakraborty et al. 2005; Chen et al. 2009; De Loor et al. 1982; bean, whereas L-band backscatter is sensitive over corn. We observed
Fontanelli et al. 2013; Harfenmeister et al. 2019; Jiao et al. 2011; that WCM being used to retrieve crop variables and soil moisture
Lopez-Sanchez et al. 2010; Paloscia 1998). Kim and van Zyl (2009) (Hosseini et al. 2015) simultaneously as well as retrieve only crop
proposed the Radar Vegetation Index (RVI), a function of backscatter variables with soil moisture obtained from ancillary sources (Bériaux
coefficients in four polarizations (HH, VV, HV, VH) to estimate et al. 2011).
Vegetation Water Content (VWC) of rice and soybean. RVI is further It is important to note that inversion of WCM to determine crop
used to monitor crop growth (Kim et al. 2011) and biomass (Wiseman variables is an ill-posed problem, which leads to equifinality, i.e., pos-
et al. 2014). Furthermore, attempts are made to analyze the backscatter sibility of the existence of multiple combinations of vegetation variable
° ° °
ratio (e.g. σHH σVV ) to assess their relationship with biomass (Satalino and soil moisture that may result in an optimum value σpp . Therefore,
et al. 2009; Veloso et al. 2017), LAI (Chen et al. 2009), and crop growth inverting WCM is a challenging task while retrieving the crop variables.
(He et al. 2018). Attempts are made to investigate several inversion techniques (e.g.,
Macelloni et al. (2001) attempted to relate multi-frequency SAR optimization, LUT, SVR, and random forests) that address the ill-posed
data (from airborne and satellite sensors) and biomass with a focus on problem of WCM to retrieve crop variables using SAR data (Mandal
broad and narrow leaf crops. They concluded that the backscattering et al. 2019a; Mandal et al. 2019b). Furthermore, Steele-Dunne et al.
increases with an increase in biomass in the case of broadleaf crops, and (2017) illustrated that the vegetation water content is not uniform
remains flat or decreases in the case of narrow-leaf crops. Some studies along with the height of the canopy, and it also varies with the crop
also reported saturation of backscatter at higher LAI or biomass (Asilo growth.
et al. 2019; Inoue et al. 2002; Jiao et al. 2011; Wiseman et al. 2014). The models explained above are used primarily for the estimation of
Inoue et al. (2002) took multi-frequency (L, C, X, Ku, Ka bands), mul- LAI and biomass, which are primary indicators of crop yield. In the case
tiple incidence angles (20°-60°), and four polarizations (HH, VV, HV, of retrieval of crop height – a strong indicator of crop phenology –
VH) backscatter measurements over the complete growth of rice crop to radiative transfer models that describe the scattering nature of vege-
compare with in-situ measured LAI, biomass, crop height, and stem tation are available (Blaes et al. 2006; Bracaglia et al. 1995; Chuah et al.
density. Efforts also focused on understanding the influence of soil 1996; Karam et al. 1995; Karam et al. 1992; Le Vine et al. 1985; Ulaby
moisture and surface roughness on backscatter measurements while et al. 1990; Wang et al. 2009; Yueh et al. 1992). They belong to the
modeling crop variables (Major et al. 1994; Wang et al. 1987). Steele- category of energy and wave approaches. These models consider

9
L. Karthikeyan, et al. Journal of Hydrology 586 (2020) 124905

canopy variables such as vegetation height, stem width, number of quantifies the total water content in the leaf and woody components
leaves, leaf angle, leaf size, dielectric constant, and backscatter from the of above-ground biomass (Liu et al. 2011). The VOD is found to have a
soil as inputs to simulate the top-of-canopy backscatter. Although some relationship with optical vegetation indices (Grant et al. 2016;
attempts are made to retrieve crop height using these models (Le Toan Lawrence et al. 2014; O’Neill et al. 2018), and radar backscatter
et al. 1997; Zhang et al. 2014a,b), there may be a need to generate measurements (Rötzer et al. 2017). In addition to the VOD,
many datasets (e.g., using Monte Carlo simulations (Tsang et al. 1995)) microwave vegetation indices (which are functions of dual-polarized
to run the models (Erten et al. 2016). TB are also found to be useful to monitor vegetation (Becker and
SAR interferometry (InSAR) is another popular technique to retrieve Choudhury 1988; Choudhury and Tucker 1987; Choudhury et al. 1987;
vegetation height. The method is based on the phase difference between Paloscia and Pampaloni 1992; Shi et al. 2008). Current retrieval
two spatially/temporally SAR acquisitions. However, this method has algorithms can retrieve VOD using the satellite TB measurements
limited applications to retrieve crop height due to low spatial and potentially without the need for ancillary vegetation information (Du
temporal resolutions of satellite SAR sensors (Erten et al. 2016). et al. 2016; Fernandez-Moran et al. 2017; Jones et al. 2011;
Tandem interferometry – wherein two satellites are flown in close Karthikeyan et al. 2019; Konings et al. 2017; Konings et al. 2016;
formation – circumvent these issues, and are useful in retrieving the Owe et al. 2001).
crop height. The interferometric coherence (which measures the phase VOD is reported as a potential indicator for crop yield estimation
variance between two SAR images) and differential interferometric (Chaparro et al. 2018; Mladenova et al. 2017; Piles et al. 2017). VOD
phase are key variables for crop height estimation in this method (Blaes provides complementary information compared to optical indices such
and Defourny 2003; Rossi and Erten 2014). Studies have found a ne- as EVI while estimating crop yield, given its ability to provide three-
gative correlation between coherence and crop height (increase in crop dimensional vegetation water content (Guan et al. 2016; Piles et al.
height results in a decrease in coherence) (Engdahl et al. 2001; 2017). VOD (from SMOS) is found to explain the crop growth and yield
Srivastava et al. 2006). The TanDEM-X mission (Krieger et al. 2007), variability of corn (Hornbuckle et al. 2016; Patton and Hornbuckle
which contains twin X-band frequency satellites, became widely pop- 2012). Recently, Chaparro et al. (2018) proposed SMAP VOD seasonal
ular to retrieve crop height (Lee et al. 2018; Rossi and Erten 2014; Yoon metrics to assess crop yield variability over the north-central United
et al. 2017). States. On the other hand, Mladenova et al. (2017) observed low sen-
Polarimetric Interferometric SAR (PolInSAR) is the advanced tech- sitivity of AMSR-E (Aqua satellite) VOD compared to MODIS NDVI and
nology available to retrieve crop height information. This method uses EVI while estimating crop yield over the central and eastern US. At-
polarimetry and interferometry to determine the three-dimensional tempts are being made to utilize the respective advantages of optical
structural parameters of vegetation (Cloude and Papathanassiou 1998). and passive microwave data synergistically to monitor crop yields
PolInSAR is used widely for estimating the forest height (Cloude et al. (Mateo-Sanchis et al. 2019). Recognizing the importance of VOD, long
2013; Garestier et al. 2007; Khati et al. 2017; Khati et al. 2018; term VOD products are being developed (Liu et al. 2011; Moesinger
Papathanassiou and Cloude 2001). The accuracy of height estimation is et al. 2019).
influenced by two important factors among others, 1) temporal dec- It is important to note that the satellite TB measurements have a
orrelation – degradation of phase quality that occurs due to structural coarse spatial resolution (which is directly related to the frequency of
and dielectric changes in the plant between two acquisitions, and 2) the sensor) in the order of tens of kilometers. So, the agricultural studies
spatial baseline decorrelation – noise due to difference in positions of using these measurements can be carried out with reasonable accuracy
radar sensors between two SAR images that affect the scattering along only when there is homogeneous agriculture taking place in the whole
the vertical coordinate (Zebker and Villasenor 1992). PolInSAR data is of the pixel. Besides, standing water, in the case of rice crops, can also
inverted to retrieve crop height typically using Volume-over-Ground impact the VOD retrievals (Piles et al. 2017).
(VoG) models. These models describe a volume of discrete scatterers
(here crop canopy) on top of an impenetrable topography (here soil) 3.2. Irrigation
(Pichierri and Hajnsek 2017).
There are two types of VoG models, 1) random-volume-over-ground Irrigation is defined as the full or partial application of water by
(RVoG) model (Papathanassiou and Cloude 2001; Treuhaft and Siqueira artificial means (either surface or groundwater resources) to counter
2000), and 2) oriented-volume-over-ground (OVoG) model (Treuhaft the precipitation deficit during the crop growth periods (Ozdogan et al.
and Cloude 1999; Treuhaft and Siqueira 2000). After initial tests using 2010). Irrigation is the largest consumer of freshwater resources, with
airborne sensor and laboratory data (Lopez-Sanchez et al. 2007; Lopez- the usage of approximately 70% of the groundwater withdrawals
Sanchez et al. 2011), Lopez-Sanchez et al. (2017) proposed a metho- (Bastiaanssen et al. 2000). The irrigate water is sourced either from the
dology using VoG algorithms to retrieve rice crop height using surface (diverted from control structures such as dams) or groundwater
TanDEM-X data. Erten et al. (2016) compared the backscatter radiative resources.
transfer model, PolInSAR, and InSAR based inversion algorithms for Satellite remote sensing offers means to monitor irrigation at large
rice crop height estimation using TanDEM-X data. They recommended scales. While we monitor irrigation, we primarily study three aspects a)
that an algorithm that combines the former two techniques can make identify the locations where irrigations would have taken place, and b)
more reliable crop height retrievals. Apart from InSAR and PolInSAR, quantify either the amount of irrigation water supplied or the amount
crop height estimation is also possible with the polarimetric synthetic of water needed to reduce the crop water stress. This section deals with
aperture radar (PolSAR) measurements. However, we find only limited the developments concerning these perspectives of irrigation.
applications involving PolSAR for the retrieval of crop height
(Yuzugullu et al. 2016). 3.2.1. Mapping of irrigated areas
Accurate mapping of irrigated areas is necessary for a) achieving
3.1.5.2. Use of passive microwave remote sensing. Passive microwave precise water allocations to agriculture, b) improving our under-
remote sensors (called radiometers) measures the naturally emitted standing of water budget, and c) for the betterment of simulations from
electromagnetic radiations from the Earth’s surface in the form of crop and hydrological models. If we consider optical satellite sensors,
brightness temperature (TB ). Typically, the retrieval algorithm for the information from MODIS, AVHRR, and Landsat is used widely for
vegetation involves a radiative transfer model (RTM). The RTM, detecting the irrigation. We find irrigation mapping is carried out in
when applied over low frequency (in L-, C-, and X- bands) two ways, 1) analyzing the spectral patterns of a single image to classify
measurements, can simulate the measured satellite TB as a function of irrigated and non-irrigated areas, and 2) using images over a time
the Vegetation Optical Depth (VOD), a vegetation indicator that period (e.g., crop growth period) to assess the spatio-temporal

10
L. Karthikeyan, et al. Journal of Hydrology 586 (2020) 124905

variations of irrigation patterns. The core concept of these two methods in irrigated locations (increased greenness due to higher soil moisture).
depends on the variations offered by irrigated areas in terms of spectral Hence, several studies utilized maximum NDVI composites for mapping
reflectance compared to other land cover categories. irrigated regions (Biggs et al. 2006; Chance et al. 2018; Jin et al. 2016).
For instance, Biggs et al. (2006) applied unsupervised classification
3.2.1.1. Use of optical and infrared sensors. Traditionally visual over MODIS monthly maximum NDVI composite images for the year
interpretation is carried out to identify the irrigated regions using 2002 to detect irrigation areas in the Krishna basin, India. Jin et al.
static maps (Heller and Johnson 1979; Rundquist et al. 1989; (2016) applied the Support Vector Machine (SVM) classification algo-
Thiruvengadachari 1981). The information from red and NIR bands is rithm on HuanJing (HJ)-1A/B maximum NDVI timeseries to differ-
used widely for visual interpretation. These works also considered entiate irrigated and rainfed wheat agriculture in China for circa 2011.
multiple images within a growing season to account for differences in Attempts are made to use peak NDVI information in thresholding based
the irrigation timing and growth stages. Despite its accuracy, visual decision-tree algorithm framework to derive irrigated areas (Ambika
interpretation is a cost and time-intensive process (Ozdogan et al. et al. 2016; Pervez et al. 2014). Studies have reported similarity in the
2010). Also, the visual interpretation can be carried out only on a local greenness of irrigated and rain-fed crops in humid regions (Ozdogan
scale. Image classification techniques tend to alleviate this problem. et al. 2010; Xiao et al. 2005). So, the inclusion of climate information in
Some of the commonly used classification algorithms for this purpose the classification algorithms can address the uncertainties
include maximum likelihood technique, image segmentation technique, (Kamthonkiat et al. 2005). Ozdogan and Gutman (2008) implemented
spectral matching technique, decision tree classification, density slicing decision trees classification algorithm to identify irrigated areas using
with thresholds, and multi-stage classification (Abou EL-Magd & MODIS NDVI and GI (Greenness Index) (Gitelson et al., 2005) along
Tanton, 2003; Eckhardt et al. 1990; Manavalan et al. 1995; with climate and agricultural extent information over the CONUS re-
Simonneaux et al. 2008; Velpuri et al. 2009). Apart from spectral gion for circa 2001.
signatures, vegetation indices are also useful for irrigation mapping. Chen et al. (2018) determined the irrigation attributes (extent,
NDVI is used widely for this purpose, given its ability to exhibit a timing, and frequency) using MODIS and Landsat timeseries along with
considerable difference between irrigated and non-irrigated pixels precipitation data, among others, in a heterogeneous landscape in
(Ozdogan et al. 2006; Toomanian et al. 2004). northwestern China. Recently, Deines et al. (2019) developed high re-
Several studies used multi-temporal images during crop growing solution (30 m) annual irrigation maps spanning from 1984 to 2017
season over several years for irrigation mapping. The multi-temporal over the central US. They used Landsat imagery and Google Earth En-
analysis can consider the varying cropping patterns, planting dates, and gine along with temperature, rainfall, soil, and terrain information as
crop growth, along with the extent of irrigation. In this context, covariates in a random forest classifier along with other steps to pro-
Thenkabail et al. (2005) developed a comprehensive algorithm based duce the dataset.
on timeseries of MODIS spectral bands (2, 3, 5, 6, and 7) data to detect
irrigation and rainfed classes along with crop onset, peak, and senes- 3.2.1.2. Use of microwave sensors. In addition to optical sensors,
cence (aging of the plant). The time series of spectral signatures are satellite soil moisture products from microwave sensors are also used
generally transformed into vegetation indices and are subjected to un- to identify the irrigated areas. Microwave sensors offer an advantage
supervised classification or thresholding (value that differentiates irri- over optical sensors to provide measurements independent of solar
gated and non-irrigated areas) to map the irrigation locations (Gumma illumination and cloud cover conditions. The operational soil moisture
et al. 2011; Jeong et al. 2012; Nhamo et al. 2019; Xiang et al. 2019; missions SMOS and SMAP achieved substantial improvements in terms
Xiao et al. 2005). For instance, Gumma et al. (2011) used eight-day of the accuracy of satellite soil moisture products. Lawston et al. (2017)
composites of MODIS NDVI (circa 2001) to map irrigated areas with an found SMAP 9 km soil moisture products to have an ability to identify
unsupervised classification based framework in the Krishna basin, the spatio-temporal patterns of irrigation in the US. There have been
India. Xiao et al. (2005) combined eight-day composites of MODIS attempts to compare the satellite soil moisture products with rainfall as
NDVI, EVI, and LSWI (Land Surface Water Index) using thresholding to well as vegetation patterns to assess the irrigated areas (Qiu et al. 2016;
detect flooded paddy fields of southern China. Xiang et al. (2019) at- Singh et al. 2016). Notwithstanding the recent efforts, several
tempted to differentiate the irrigated areas from forest pixels using a hydrological models do not consider the effects of irrigation because
similar thresholding process involving MODIS NDVI and LSWI in of the challenges involved in coupling irrigation modules into the land
northeastern China. surface model schemes. In this regard, attempts are made to compare
Efforts are made to use multi-temporal spectral information in a soil moisture simulations from these models (that do not consider
supervised classification framework (e.g., spectral matching techni- irrigation effects) with satellite soil moisture products (which consider
ques). Based on these techniques, the satellite information is correlated both rainfall and irrigation effects on soil moisture) in order to identify
with the spectral bank (obtained from the ground), and the class that the irrigated areas (Escorihuela and Quintana-Seguí 2016; Kumar et al.
achieves maximum correlation (with satellite data at a location) will be 2015; Malbeteau et al. 2018; Zhang et al. 2018).
assigned (Dheeravath et al. 2010; Thenkabail et al. 2007). Sharma et al. Research is also conducted to assess the potency of radar backscatter
(2018) used Landsat NDVI, NDMI (Normalized Difference Moisture measurements to detect irrigated areas. Fieuzal et al. (2011) found that
°
Index), and EVI timeseries from 1990 to 2015 in a supervised SVM σHH Envisat/ASAR sensor is sensitive to irrigated areas in the wheat-
(Support Vector Machine) classification framework to identify the ir- growing seasons in Yaqui irrigated area, Mexico. Similarly, Hajj et al.
rigated areas in an Indian watershed with spatially heterogenous (2014) found that the timeseries of TerraSAR-X and COSMO-SkyMed X-
cropping system. It is important to note that the supervised analysis Band SAR backscatter is sensitive to the irrigation events over grass-
requires an adequate amount of ground-truth information in order to lands. Recently, attempts are made to use backscatter measurements in
train the model. Uncertainties in the training data can affect the ac- a classification framework to derive irrigation map (Bazzi et al. 2019;
curacy of classification. Furthermore, it is difficult to conduct su- Bousbih et al. 2018; Gao et al. 2018; Sharma et al. 2019). For instance,
pervised classification at continental scales. Some studies attempted to Bazzi et al. (2019) used Sentinel 1 SAR timeseries in three classification
circumvent the requirement of ground data by using the Landsat re- algorithms – wavelet-random forest, principle component analysis-
flectance information as a reference (Peña-Arancibia et al. 2014). random forest, and convolution neural network (CNN) classifiers – to
Irrigation can result in different crop growth patterns compared to map irrigated and non-irrigated areas in Catalonia, Spain.
that of exclusively rainfed agriculture (Thenkabail et al. 2005). Irri-
gated agriculture can result in 2.7 times more crop yield compared to 3.2.1.3. Global products of irrigated area. Few attempts are made to map
rain-fed agriculture. Given these reasons, NDVI is predominantly higher the irrigated areas (or areas indicative of irrigation) at the global scale.

11
L. Karthikeyan, et al. Journal of Hydrology 586 (2020) 124905

The Global Map of Irrigated Areas version 5 (GMIA 5.0) product relationship with vegetation indices such as NDVI and SAVI (Calera
spanning from 2000 to 2008 (Siebert et al. 2015), and MIRCA2000 et al. 2017). Remote sensing information can be used to estimate
product for circa 2000 (Portmann et al. 2010) are the two datasets directly ETcrop using surface energy balance methods. ET is estimated
prepared used the census information. These two products are available through latent heat flux (product of latent heat of vaporization and ET)
at 5 arc-minute resolution. Global irrigated area map (GIAM) is a global in the energy balance equation. The two-source energy balance (TSEB)
product developed using meteorological data, land use, and multiple (Norman et al. 1995), the surface energy balance algorithm (SEBAL)
satellite sensors information (Thenkabail et al. 2009b). The product (Bastiaanssen et al. 1998), the simplified surface energy balance index
primarily uses unsupervised classification and is available at 1 km (S-SEBI) (Roerink et al. 2000), and the surface energy balance system
resolution for circa 2000. The Global Rain-fed, Irrigated, and Paddy (SEBS) (Su 2002) are some of the widely used energy balance models to
Croplands (GRIPC) map is another global product that is based on estimate ET. Attempts are made to compare these models for their
statistics, climate, and satellite sensor data (Salmon et al. 2015). This accuracy (Eswar et al. 2017; Wagle et al. 2017). Apart from IWR,
product is developed using a decision-tree algorithm at a 500 m irrigation scheduling is also necessary to prevent crops from water
resolution for the year 2005. The ESA under Climate Change stress. The remotely sensed Crop Water Stress Index (CWSI) (Jackson
Initiative (CCI) produced a global land cover map, containing et al. 1981), computed as a function of the differences between canopy
irrigated and non-irrigated areas, at 300 m resolution for the years and air temperatures, is widely used for this purpose (Gontia and Tiwari
2000, 2005, and 2011 using Medium Resolution Imaging Spectrometer 2008; O'Shaughnessy et al. 2012; Veysi et al. 2017). Attempts are also
(MERIS) data with unsupervised clustering and expert knowledge made to assess the efficiency of irrigation by considering vegetation
(Bontemps et al. 2013). Meier et al. (2018) developed a 1 km indicators and water policies along with ETcrop (Al Zayed and Elagib
resolution global irrigated area product spanning from 1999 to 2012. 2017). Further information on crop and irrigation water requirements
The product is based on GMIA and satellite/reanalysis/observations can be obtained from Calera et al. (2017).
based vegetation, agriculture, land cover, and precipitation
information. Recently, Zohaib et al. (2019) developed global irrigated 3.2.2.2. Estimation of irrigation water use (IWU). In the case of IWR, the
areas product for the year 2015 using satellite-based soil moisture, LST, irrigation withdrawals from the source are estimated, which may or
and surface albedo along with reanalysis products. It is important to may not be translated to actual irrigation usage due to either under or
note that these datasets are difficult to validate at the global scale due over-irrigation. Besides, the uncertainty in ET can also impact the
to the lack of observed data. Studies also noticed discrepancies when accuracy of IWR estimates. Analyzing the soil moisture variations
these products are evaluated at local scales (Meier et al. 2018; concerning precipitation can indicate the amount of water consumed
Thenkabail et al. 2009a; Thenkabail et al. 2009b). through irrigation (IWU). Recent efforts have focused on using this
concept to determine the IWU. (Brocca et al. 2014; Brocca et al. 2013)
3.2.2. Quantification of irrigation water have developed precipitation datasets using soil moisture as the driving
Unlike identifying the irrigated areas, it is challenging to quantify variable. The underlying algorithm called ‘SM2RAIN’ is applied to
the irrigation water at large scales. This is because, 1) the observed several soil moisture products (Brocca et al. 2016; Ciabatta et al. 2017).
information of the volume of irrigated is limited to limited spatio- The IWU is attributed to the systematic differences between the
temporal scales, 2) technical and legal constraints of setting up in-situ resultant precipitation from SM2RAIN and the actual precipitation
stations (Brocca et al. 2018). Besides, the heterogeneous agricultural data (Brocca et al. 2018; Jalilvand et al. 2019). In a similar attempt,
system with varying irrigation practices can lead to significant un- Zaussinger et al. (2019) quantified IWU by determining the systematic
certainties in the irrigation estimates. In literature, we find two ways in difference between the satellite soil moisture products (SMAP, AMSR2,
which the irrigation water is quantified, 1) estimate Irrigation Water and ASCAT) and reanalysis soil moisture product (MERRA-2, which
Requirement (IWR), and 2) estimate Irrigation Water Consumption does not account for irrigation) over the Contiguous United States
(IWU). According to the definitions provided by Allen et al. (1998), the (CONUS) region. Besides, attempts are being made to arrive at IWU by
IWR is the difference between the Crop Water Requirement (CWR) and estimating the difference between the soil moisture simulations from
effective precipitation. It is the amount of water that should be supplied land surface model simulations (that do not consider irrigation effects)
to maintain the potential transpiration of the crop (Calera et al. 2017). and the soil moisture simulations obtained by assimilating satellite soil
The IWR also considers water needed for leaching of salts and com- moisture into the land surface model (to account for the irrigation
pensates for the non-uniform water application. Apart from ETcrop , IWR effects) (Abolafia-Rosenzweig et al., 2019; Nair and Indu 2019). It may
is a function of precipitation, soil moisture, and soil properties. The be noted that the satellite products provide soil moisture of only surface
CWR is the amount of water required to manage the losses due to crop (~5 cm) (Karthikeyan et el., 2017). However, the uptake of water from
evapotranspiration (ETcrop ). Several works used these schemes as basis soil depends on the root depth of the crop species. Therefore, it is
to model the IWR (Döll and Siebert 2002; Hanasaki et al. 2010; important to quantify the rootzone soil moisture to infer accurately
Hanasaki et al. 2006; Pokhrel et al. 2012; Rost et al. 2008; Siebert et al. about the IWU. In this regard, attempts are being made to simulate
2010; Sulser et al. 2010; Van Dijk et al. 2018; Wada et al. 2011; Wisser rootzone soil moisture by assimilating satellite soil moisture products in
et al. 2008). a land surface models using data assimilation algorithms (Das and
Mohanty, 2006; De Lannoy and Reichle, 2016; Li et al., 2010; Liu and
3.2.2.1. Estimation of irrigation water requirement (IWR). ETcrop is one of Mishra, 2017; Martens et al., 2017; Reichle et al., 2017; Reichle et al.,
the important variables to estimate IWR. ETcrop is influenced by climate 2019). Similar attempts are being made to assimilate Gravity Recovery
(air temperature, humidity, radiation, and wind speed) and crop and Climate Experiment (GRACE) Terrestrial Water Storage (TWS) in
(growth stage, crop height, and rooting characteristics, etc.) land surface models (Girotto et al., 2019; Tian et al., 2019).
conditions (Allen et al. 1998). Traditionally Penman-Monteith (PM)
equation is used to estimate ETcrop for determining the CWR. This 3.3. Crop losses
equation is derived from surface energy balance and aerodynamic
resistance equations. The PM equation, under standard conditions of Crop losses significantly affect agricultural productivity. They occur
vegetation, as defined by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), due to abiotic factors and biotic factors (Oerke 2006). The former in-
can be used to determine reference crop evapotranspiration (ET0 ) (Allen clude irradiation, water, temperature, and nutrients. The latter include
et al. 1998). ET0 multiplied with crop coefficient (kc ) yields ETcrop . kc is pests, diseases, and weeds. Crop lodging (roots may lose the anchorage
dependent on crop characteristics and soil evaporation conditions. kc to sustain the crop) as a result of some of the abiotic factors. Satellite
can be determined using remote sensing products through its remote sensing is increasingly being used to detect crop losses. The

12
L. Karthikeyan, et al. Journal of Hydrology 586 (2020) 124905

detection is possible when there is a difference in the spectral signature population density, nitrogen nutrition, plant growth regulators, stem
from the crop, which is affected by any of the above-described factors. diseases, weak stems, and weak root anchorage (Kendall et al. 2017).
Some of the losses may not be detectable in case they do not exhibit Crop lodging has resulted in losses of £47-120 million for rapeseed crop
differentiable spectral patterns. (Kendall et al. 2017) and $80 million for winter wheat crop (Berry et al.
1998) in the UK per year. Crop lodging results in the reduction of crop
3.3.1. Pests and diseases height, crop inclination, and crop yield, which is dependent on the crop
Pests and diseases damage the crops primarily in four ways, 1) re- growth stage at which lodging would have occurred. Identifying these
duction of biomass due to destruction of leaf, stalk and stem, 2) de- features through remote sensing information can be crucial to detect
velopment of crop lesions or pustules due to infections, 3) destruction of crop lodging. Although detection of crop lodging is widely carried out
leaf pigments, and 4) wilting of plants (Zhang et al. 2019). Wheat rusts, at field scale using in-situ and airborne remote sensors, the use of sa-
locusts, armyworms, fruit flies, rice blast, sheath blight of rice, mildew, tellite remote sensing is still at primitive stages (Chauhan
leafhopper, aphid bugs, beetles, and rhizomania are some of the crop et al.,2019a,b). Besides, most of the studies use backscatter from active
pests and diseases, which can be detected through remote sensing. Ef- microwave satellite sensors for this purpose.
forts are being made to detect losses due to pests and diseases at the The studies that carried out a qualitative detection used radar
leaf, canopy, and regional scales. Satellite remote sensing in optical and backscatter coefficients or their ratios to identify lodging and non-
NIR frequencies is used prominently at a regional scale for this purpose. lodging regions. In one of the first studies, (Yang et al. 2015) used
Apart from optical and NIR satellite sensors, attempts are made to use backscatter polarization ratio, odd-scattering contribution ratio, and
fluorescence and microwave measurements for detecting pests and the double-bounce scattering ratio in total scattering obtained from
diseases. However, most of the studies are limited to the leaf/canopy RADARSAT-2 to detect wheat lodging regions. Similar attempts are
scales. Information from both multispectral and hyperspectral satellite carried out by Zhao et al. (2017) and Li et al. (2019) to detect wheat
sensors – which include Landsat, MODIS, Hyperion, SPOT, among and canola and sugarcane lodging, respectively, using RADARSAT-2
others – is found to be useful for pest and disease detection (Bauriegel data. Some studies used the reduction of crop height as an indicator to
et al. 2011; Eklundh et al. 2009; Oumar and Mutanga 2013; Pengra arrive at a quantitative assessment of crop lodging. Han et al. (2017)
et al. 2007; Yuan et al. 2014). Apart from widely used vegetation in- used crop height as a proxy to estimate the severity of corn lodging. Shu
dices such as NDVI, EVI, NDWI, and LAI, indices such as Disease Water et al. (2019) estimated the lodging angle (crop inclination) by de-
Stress Index (DWSI) (Apan et al. 2004), Disease Index (DI) (Zheng et al. termining the crop height before and after lodging of maize crop using
2018) and Yellow Rust Index (YRI) (Huang et al. 2014) for detecting Sentinel-1 SAR data. Recently, Chauhan et al. (2020) modeled crop
wheat yellow rust, Aphid Index (AI) (Luo et al. 2013), and Leafhopper inclination (in-situ measurement) and polarization metrics derived
Index (LHI) (Prabhakar et al. 2011), among others are proposed for pest from Sentinel-1 and RADARSAT-2 data using Support Vector Regres-
and disease detection. sion (SVR) technique. Further details on the status of remote sensing of
The growth of pests and diseases require suitable vegetation and crop lodging detection can be obtained from Chauhan et al. (2019).
meteorological conditions (Coops et al. 2006). The Tasseled Crop
Transformation (TST) (Crist and Cicone 1984) – that determines para-
meters such as brightness, greenness, and wetness of vegetation – is 3.3.3. Weeds
generally used to identify the vegetation conditions that are prone to Weeds are competitive (or invasive) plants that grow in farms. They
pests and diseases. The combined use of these datasets is found to im- reduce crop productivity since they compete for the inorganic nutrients
prove the accuracy of the detection of pests and diseases (Bhattacharya with crops (Oerke 2006). Weeds account for almost 34% of the global
and Chattopadhyay 2013; Yuan et al. 2017; Zhang et al. 2014a). It may crop losses and can potentially lead to the highest crop losses compared
be noted that a crop can be subjected to various forms of pests and to other factors (Oerke 2006). However, they can be destroyed either
diseases during its growth. Besides, there may be spatial heterogeneity through mechanical treatment or by spraying herbicides. For the ef-
of species of pests and diseases in the field. Hence it is essential to assess fective operation of these treatments, it is essential to identify the lo-
the spatio-temporal heterogeneities along the severity of pests and cations of weeds, which can be carried out using remote sensing. In the
diseases to strategize their treatment. It is possible to identify these past, airborne sensors are used widely to identify the locations affected
heterogeneities through the differences in the patterns of reflectance. by weeds (Thorp and Tian 2004). Currently, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
This task can be achieved through the classification algorithms such as (UAVs) are regularly being used for field-scale identification of weeds.
Artificial Neural Network (ANN), random forests (RF), partial least Since satellite remote sensing retrieves information at the coarser spa-
squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA), maximum likelihood classifier, tial resolution, it can be challenging for weed detection given their size
Bayesian classifiers, among others (da Rocha Miranda et al. 2020; Dhau and patchiness (Müllerová et al. 2017).
et al. 2019; Yuan et al. 2014). In the case of hyperspectral remote Weeds can be identified from the difference in the spectral patterns
sensing, spectral unmixing algorithms are used to discriminate pests of reflectivities compared to that of a crop. Initial studies used band
and diseases (Fitzgerald et al. 2004; Franke and Menz 2007). On the reflectance information from satellites such as SPOT, Landsat TM, and
other hand, the severity of pests and diseases can also be identified AVHRR in classification algorithms to identify weed-infested regions
using machine learning regression-based algorithms (Chemura et al. (Anderson et al. 1993b; Everitt et al. 1993; Peters et al. 1992; Ullah
2017; Liu et al., 2019a,b; Oumar and Mutanga 2013). Satellite revisits 1989). Attempts are made to identify weeds using vegetation indices.
are found to be useful to carry out multitemporal analysis to assess the (Backes and Jacobi 2006) used NDVI from QuickBird in a supervised
spread of pests and diseases (Dhau et al. 2019; Eklundh et al. 2009; classification framework to identify weed patches. Castillejo-González
Franke and Menz 2007; Ji et al. 2004; Wulder et al. 2008; Zhang et al. et al. (2014) used band reflectance and NDVI of Quickbird in seven
2016; Zhang et al. 2014b). Further details on the applications of remote classification algorithms to identify wild oat patches in wheat fields.
sensing to detect crop pests and diseases can be obtained from (Zhang Similar attempts are made using Sentinel-2A, Landsat 8, SPOT-5, and
et al. 2019). Worldview-2 data (Matongera et al. 2017; Odindi et al. 2014; Ottosen
et al. 2019; Tarantino et al. 2019). We find the usage of satellite sensors
3.3.2. Crop lodging for weed detection limited mostly to commercial satellites, which
Crop lodging is the displacement of stem or root anchorage from provide reflectance information at very high spatial resolution
their vertical position (Pinthus 1974). It occurs mainly in cereal crops (< 10 m).
(rice, wheat, barley, etc.) (Chauhan et al.,2019a,b). Some of the factors
that cause crop lodging include wind forces, rains, soil strength, plant

13
L. Karthikeyan, et al. Journal of Hydrology 586 (2020) 124905

4. Summary detection, the experiments are confined, as of now, to field scale


(using field/airborne sensors). Crop lodging is another cause of crop
In this work, we review three aspects of the role of satellite remote losses. Currently, crop lodging is detected using backscatter mea-
sensing for managing agriculture, 1) crop growth and yield assessment, surements. Since lodging is linked with crop height, the detection
2) irrigation mapping and quantification, and 3) crop losses. In this algorithms derive height and its related parameters (such as in-
process, we reviewed how satellite sensors that measure signals from clination). Lastly, weeds, which lead to crop losses, are detected
the Earth’s surface across various frequencies, including optical, using vegetation indices and classification algorithms.
thermal, and microwave spectrum, are contributing to the above areas
of research. Following is the summary of the review. 5. Outlook

• Crop growth and yield assessment: Regression relationship with The following conclusions can be drawn from this review.
indices such as NDVI, RVI, and VCI are used to estimate crop yield
and LAI. Both multispectral and hyperspectral imageries are found • There is a need to develop robust algorithms that determine the crop
to be useful for this purpose. Physical models, such as the PROSAIL productivity (in terms of yield) in heterogeneous agricultural sys-
model (that simulates canopy reflectance as a function of LAI and tems since most of the research focused on scales that match satellite
other variables/parameters), are widely used to retrieve LAI. footprint. Upcoming satellite missions such as NASA-ISRO SAR
Besides, crop simulation models account for climate and agricultural mission (NISAR) (https://nisar.jpl.nasa.gov/), which can retrieve
conditions for simulating crop variables. Data assimilation has backscatter as high as 10 m spatial resolution, can contribute to
turned into a useful tool to synergistically combine model simula- addressing the need. Besides, planned missions such as Copernicus
tions and remote sensing data for improving the crop state variables Microwave Imaging Radiometer (CMIR) (Kilic et al., 2018) based on
such as fPAR and LAI. With increased efforts of obtaining soil multi-frequency (L, C, X, Ka/Ku) bands brightness temperature
moisture observations at global scales (using microwave sensors), measurements can contribute towards obtaining enhanced opera-
attempts are made to ingest soil moisture (in data assimilation fra- tional products.
mework) into crop simulations models to improve the estimation of • There are challenges associated with application of crop models in
crop yield. SIF is one of the emerging areas of research. Attempts are terms of parameter calibration, large scale applicability, and quan-
made to use SIF measurements to determine GPP and crop yield tification of uncertainties. Although data assimilation is intended to
through regression analysis. The radar microwave signals, due to complement with some of these issues, most of the research is fo-
their ability to penetrate through the atmosphere, are being used cused on assimilating only LAI. There is a need to carry out multi-
widely for crop growth assessment. These studies use methods such variable assimilation to improve the quality of crop yield simula-
as semi-empirical models (e.g., WCM), energy and wave approaches, tions. In this process, the issues pertaining to the mismatch between
and polarimetric decomposition to retrieve crop variables such as spatio-temporal scales of different sensors, as well as crop models,
LAI and biomass. Crop monitoring is also carried out by estimating need to be addressed.
crop height. For this purpose, InSAR, tandem interferometry, • Over the recent years, satellite sensor based Solar Induced
PolSAR, and PolInSAR techniques are widely used. Research is in- Fluorescence (SIF) is gaining much importance due to its ability to
itiated to study the linkage between passive microwave VOD and capture the plant’s photosynthetic activity. There is a need to de-
crop growth in regions where agriculture is practiced in large spatial velop crop models that can simulate plant fluorescence so that SIF
scales. from satellites can be ingested to improve the yield estimation. ESA's
• Irrigation: Remote sensing information contributes to irrigation future mission Fluorescence Explorer (FLEX) (Drusch et al., 2017)
research by either identifying the irrigated areas or quantifying the dedicated to measure SIF shall contribute towards these research
amount of water required/supplied. Optical/thermal reflectance efforts.
information collected over several years is subjected to either su- • Uncertainties persist in the irrigation assessment in terms of quan-
pervised or unsupervised classification algorithms to identify the tifying both requirements and utilization through satellite remote
irrigated areas. Derived products such as NDVI, NDMI, EVI, LSWI sensing. Addressing this challenge requires in-situ information of
are also used in classification schemes for this purpose. Similar irrigation water supplied to farms.
classification schemes are applied to backscatter timeseries from • Detecting irrigation under heterogeneous agriculture with varying
radar sensors for detecting irrigation. In the case of passive micro- irrigation scheduling at the plot scale remains a concern. For this
wave sensors, the soil moisture obtained measures the moisture purpose, the possibility of integrating remote sensing data with
changes due to rainfall as well as irrigation events. Therefore, at- hydro-economic models (Harou et al. 2009) (that take into account
tempts are made to use soil moisture products to identify the spatial water allocation policy, water pricing, among others) can be ex-
and temporal patterns of irrigated areas. ET is an essential variable plored.
for quantifying the irrigation water requirement. Energy balance • It is challenging to detect pests and diseases in the early stages since
methods are popular in determining ET using optical/thermal re- most of them originate from the base of the plant. The crop would
flectance from satellites. On the other hand, the identification of have been already destroyed by the time leaves get affected (which
irrigation water supplied to a farm is a primary function of soil could be detected with remote sensing). Multi-look angle sensors
moisture. Recent efforts have focused on extracting the irrigation may aid in early detection of pests and droughts.
information by using satellite soil moisture and precipitation data- • A crop may be subjected to variety of stresses, which change over its
sets. growth cycle. Efforts have to be made to differentiate the stresses
• Crop losses: Crop losses due to pests and diseases are detected at a using satellite sensors so as to precisely strategize the crop protec-
large scale using optical/thermal reflectance data. Apart from ve- tion.
getation indices, disease detection indices such as Aphid Index, • Most of the research on crop losses is currently being carried out
DWSI, among others, are used. The spread of pests and diseases are using Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), which have very high re-
identified by applying classification algorithms on multi-temporal solution. There is a need to develop a framework of integrating in-
data. However, such detection is possible only when the reflectance formation from UAVs at a local scale with satellite sensors, which
from pest/disease affected plant exhibit significantly different have a global reach for large scale monitoring of crop losses in real-
spectral pattern compared to that of a healthy leaf. Although efforts time.
are being made to use microwave or SIF data for pests and disease

14
L. Karthikeyan, et al. Journal of Hydrology 586 (2020) 124905

CRediT authorship contribution statement Bartlett, D., Hardisky, M., Johnson, R., Gross, M., Klemas, V., Hartman, J., 1988.
Continental scale variability in vegetation reflectance and its relationship to canopy
morphology. Int. J. Remote Sens. 9, 1223–1241.
L. Karthikeyan: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Bastiaanssen, W.G., Menenti, M., Feddes, R., Holtslag, A., 1998. A remote sensing surface
Writing - original draft. Ila Chawla: Conceptualization, Formal ana- energy balance algorithm for land (SEBAL). 1. Formulation. Journal of hydrology 212,
lysis, Investigation, Writing - original draft. Ashok K. Mishra: 198–212.
Bastiaanssen, W.G., Molden, D.J., Makin, I.W., 2000. Remote sensing for irrigated agri-
Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Supervision, Writing - review & culture: examples from research and possible applications. Agric. Water Manag. 46,
editing, Funding acquisition. 137–155.
Bauriegel, E., Giebel, A., Geyer, M., Schmidt, U., Herppich, W., 2011. Early detection of
Fusarium infection in wheat using hyper-spectral imaging. Comput. Electron. Agric.
Declaration of Competing Interest 75, 304–312.
Bazzi, H., Baghdadi, N., Ienco, D., El Hajj, M., Zribi, M., Belhouchette, H., Escorihuela,
M.J., Demarez, V., 2019. Mapping Irrigated Areas Using Sentinel-1 Time Series in
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
Catalonia. Spain. Remote Sensing 11, 1836.
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ- Becker, F., Choudhury, B.J., 1988. Relative sensitivity of normalized difference vegeta-
ence the work reported in this paper. tion index (NDVI) and microwave polarization difference index (MPDI) for vegetation
and desertification monitoring. Remote Sens. Environ. 24, 297–311.
Benedetti, R., Rossini, P., 1993. On the use of NDVI profiles as a tool for agricultural
Acknowledgments statistics: The case study of wheat yield estimate and forecast in Emilia Romagna.
Remote Sens. Environ. 45, 311–326.
This study was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF, Berger, K., Atzberger, C., Danner, M., D’Urso, G., Mauser, W., Vuolo, F., Hank, T., 2018.
Evaluation of the PROSAIL model capabilities for future hyperspectral model en-
USA) award # 1653841 and 1841629. Authors acknowledge Abhishek vironments: a review study. Remote Sensing 10, 85.
Kumar, Azad Patle and Sumant Tyagi (Masters students of CSRE, IIT Bériaux, E., Lambot, S., Defourny, P., 2011. Estimating surface-soil moisture for retrieving
Bombay) for their assistance in compiling the literature. maize leaf-area index from SAR data. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing 37,
136–150.
Berry, P., Spink, J., Griffin, J., Sylvester-Bradley, R., Baker, C., Clare, R., & Scott, R.
References (1998). Research to understand, predict and control factors affecting lodging in
wheat. Home-Grown Cereals Authority Research Project No. 169. HGCA, 131 pp.
Bhattacharya, B., Chattopadhyay, C., 2013. A multi-stage tracking for mustard rot disease
Abolafia-Rosenzweig, R., Livneh, B., Small, E., Kumar, S., 2019. Soil moisture data as-
combining surface meteorology and satellite remote sensing. Comput. Electron.
similation to estimate irrigation water use. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst.
Agric. 90, 35–44.
Abou EL-Magd, I., Tanton, T., 2003. Improvements in land use mapping for irrigated
Biggs, T.W., Thenkabail, P.S., Gumma, M.K., Scott, C.A., Parthasaradhi, G., Turral, H.,
agriculture from satellite sensor data using a multi-stage maximum likelihood clas-
2006. Irrigated area mapping in heterogeneous landscapes with MODIS time series,
sification. Int. J. Remote Sens. 24, 4197–4206.
ground truth and census data, Krishna Basin, India. Int. J. Remote Sens. 27,
Abrahamsen, P., Hansen, S., 2000. Daisy: an open soil-crop-atmosphere system model.
4245–4266.
Environ. Modell. Software 15, 313–330.
Blaes, X., Defourny, P., 2003. Retrieving crop parameters based on tandem ERS 1/2 in-
Al Zayed, I.S., Elagib, N.A., 2017. Implications of non-sustainable agricultural water
terferometric coherence images. Remote Sens. Environ. 88, 374–385.
policies for the water-food nexus in large-scale irrigation systems: A remote sensing
Blaes, X., Defourny, P., Wegmuller, U., Della Vecchia, A., Guerriero, L., Ferrazzoli, P.,
approach. Adv. Water Resour. 110, 408–422.
2006. C-band polarimetric indexes for maize monitoring based on a validated ra-
Allen, R.G., Pereira, L.S., Raes, D., Smith, M., 1998. Crop evapotranspiration-Guidelines
diative transfer model. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 44, 791–800.
for computing crop water requirements-FAO Irrigation and drainage paper 56. Fao,
Bolton, D.K., Friedl, M.A., 2013. Forecasting crop yield using remotely sensed vegetation
Rome 300, D05109.
indices and crop phenology metrics. Agric. For. Meteorol. 173, 74–84.
Ambika, A.K., Wardlow, B., Mishra, V., 2016. Remotely sensed high resolution irrigated
Bontemps, S., Defourny, P., Radoux, J., Van Bogaert, E., Lamarche, C., Achard, F.,
area mapping in India for 2000 to 2015. Sci. Data 3, 160118.
Mayaux, P., Boettcher, M., Brockmann, C., Kirches, G., 2013. Consistent global land
Anderson, G., Hanson, J., Haas, R., 1993a. Evaluating Landsat Thematic Mapper derived
cover maps for climate modelling communities: Current achievements of the ESA’s
vegetation indices for estimating above-ground biomass on semiarid rangelands.
land cover CCI. In: In, Proceedings of the ESA Living Planet Symposium, Edimburgh, pp.
Remote Sens. Environ. 45, 165–175.
9–13.
Anderson, G.L., Everitt, J.H., Richardson, A.J., Escobar, D.E., 1993b. Using satellite data
Boogaard, H., Van Diepen, C., Rotter, R., Cabrera, J., & Van Laar, H. (1998). WOFOST 7.1;
to map false broomweed (Ericameria austrotexana) infestations on south Texas
user's guide for the WOFOST 7.1 crop growth simulation model and WOFOST Control
rangelands. Weed Technol. 7, 865–871.
Center 1.5. In: SC-DLO.
Apan, A., Held, A., Phinn, S., Markley, J., 2004. Detecting sugarcane ‘orange rust’disease
Bouman, B.A., van Kasteren, H.W., 1990a. Ground-based X-band (3-cm wave) radar
using EO-1 Hyperion hyperspectral imagery. Int. J. Remote Sens. 25, 489–498.
backscattering of agricultural crops. I. Sugar beet and potato; backscattering and crop
Arulampalam, M.S., Maskell, S., Gordon, N., Clapp, T., 2002. A tutorial on particle filters
growth. Remote Sens. Environ. 34, 93–105.
for online nonlinear/non-Gaussian Bayesian tracking. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 50,
Bouman, B.A., van Kasteren, H.W., 1990b. Ground-based X-band (3-cm wave) radar
174–188.
backscattering of agricultural crops. II. Wheat, barley, and oats; the impact of canopy
Asilo, S., Nelson, A., de Bie, K., Skidmore, A., Laborte, A., Maunahan, A., Quilang, E.J.P.,
structure. Remote Sens. Environ. 34, 107–119.
2019. Relating X-band SAR Backscattering to Leaf Area Index of Rice in Different
Bousbih, S., Zribi, M., El Hajj, M., Baghdadi, N., Lili-Chabaane, Z., Gao, Q., Fanise, P.,
Phenological Phases. Remote Sensing 11, 1462.
2018. Soil moisture and irrigation mapping in A semi-arid region, based on the sy-
Asrar, G., Kanemasu, E.T., Yoshida, M., 1985. Estimates of leaf area index from spectral
nergetic use of Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 data. Remote Sensing 10, 1953.
reflectance of wheat under different cultural practices and solar angle. Remote Sens.
Bracaglia, M., Ferrazzoli, P., Guerriero, L., 1995. A fully polarimetric multiple scattering
Environ. 17, 1–11.
model for crops. Remote Sens. Environ. 54, 170–179.
Attema, E., Ulaby, F.T., 1978. Vegetation modeled as a water cloud. Radio Sci. 13,
Brakke, T.W., Kanemasu, E.T., Steiner, J.L., Ulaby, F.T., Wilson, E., 1981. Microwave
357–364.
radar response to canopy moisture, leaf-area index, and dry weight of wheat, corn,
Atzberger, C., 2004. Object-based retrieval of biophysical canopy variables using artificial
and sorghum. Remote Sens. Environ. 11, 207–220.
neural nets and radiative transfer models. Remote Sens. Environ. 93, 53–67.
Brisson, N., Gary, C., Justes, E., Roche, R., Mary, B., Ripoche, D., Zimmer, D., Sierra, J.,
Backes, M., Jacobi, J., 2006. Classification of weed patches in Quickbird images: ver-
Bertuzzi, P., Burger, P., 2003. An overview of the crop model STICS. Eur. J. Agron.
ification by ground truth data. EARSeL eProceedings 5, 173–179.
18, 309–332.
Bacour, C., Baret, F., Béal, D., Weiss, M., Pavageau, K., 2006. Neural network estimation
Brocca, L., Ciabatta, L., Massari, C., Moramarco, T., Hahn, S., Hasenauer, S., Kidd, R.,
of LAI, fAPAR, fCover and LAI× Cab, from top of canopy MERIS reflectance data:
Dorigo, W., Wagner, W., Levizzani, V., 2014. Soil as a natural rain gauge: Estimating
Principles and validation. Remote Sens. Environ. 105, 313–325.
global rainfall from satellite soil moisture data. J. Geophys. Res.: Atmos. 119,
Baghdadi, N., Boyer, N., Todoroff, P., El Hajj, M., Bégué, A., 2009. Potential of SAR
5128–5141.
sensors TerraSAR-X, ASAR/ENVISAT and PALSAR/ALOS for monitoring sugarcane
Brocca, L., Moramarco, T., Melone, F., Wagner, W., 2013. A new method for rainfall
crops on Reunion Island. Remote Sens. Environ. 113, 1724–1738.
estimation through soil moisture observations. Geophys. Res. Lett. 40, 853–858.
Balaghi, R., Tychon, B., Eerens, H., Jlibene, M., 2008. Empirical regression models using
Brocca, L., Pellarin, T., Crow, W.T., Ciabatta, L., Massari, C., Ryu, D., Su, C.H., Rüdiger,
NDVI, rainfall and temperature data for the early prediction of wheat grain yields in
C., Kerr, Y., 2016. Rainfall estimation by inverting SMOS soil moisture estimates: A
Morocco. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 10, 438–452.
comparison of different methods over Australia. Journal of Geophysical Research:
Baret, F., Buis, S., 2008. Estimating canopy characteristics from remote sensing ob-
Atmospheres 121 12,062–012,079.
servations: Review of methods and associated problems. Advances in land remote
Brocca, L., Tarpanelli, A., Filippucci, P., Dorigo, W., Zaussinger, F., Gruber, A., Fernández-
Sensing. Springer, pp. 173–201.
Prieto, D., 2018. How much water is used for irrigation? A new approach exploiting
Baret, F., Guyot, G., 1991. Potentials and limits of vegetation indices for LAI and APAR
coarse resolution satellite soil moisture products. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 73,
assessment. Remote Sens. Environ. 35, 161–173.
752–766.
Barker, D.M., Huang, W., Guo, Y.-R., Bourgeois, A., Xiao, Q., 2004. A three-dimensional
Broge, N.H., Leblanc, E., 2001. Comparing prediction power and stability of broadband
variational data assimilation system for MM5: Implementation and initial results.
and hyperspectral vegetation indices for estimation of green leaf area index and ca-
Mon. Weather Rev. 132, 897–914.
nopy chlorophyll density. Remote Sens. Environ. 76, 156–172.

15
L. Karthikeyan, et al. Journal of Hydrology 586 (2020) 124905

Brown, M., Antle, J., Backlund, P., Carr, E.R., Easterling, W., Walsh, M., Ammann, C., D'Odorico, P., Laio, F., Porporato, A., Ridolfi, L., Rinaldo, A., Rodriguez-Iturbe, I., 2010.
Attavanich, W., Barrett, C., & Bellemare, M. (2015). Climate change, global food Ecohydrology of terrestrial ecosystems. Bioscience 60 (11), 898–907.
security, and the US food system. da Rocha Miranda, J., de Carvalho Alves, M., Pozza, E.A., Neto, H.S., 2020. Detection of
Cai, Y., Guan, K., Lobell, D., Potgieter, A.B., Wang, S., Peng, J., Xu, T., Asseng, S., Zhang, coffee berry necrosis by digital image processing of landsat 8 oli satellite imagery. Int.
Y., You, L., 2019. Integrating satellite and climate data to predict wheat yield in J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 85, 101983.
Australia using machine learning approaches. Agric. For. Meteorol. 274, 144–159. Darvishzadeh, R., Atzberger, C., Skidmore, A., Abkar, A., 2009. Leaf Area Index deriva-
Calera, A., Campos, I., Osann, A., D’Urso, G., Menenti, M., 2017. Remote sensing for crop tion from hyperspectral vegetation indicesand the red edge position. Int. J. Remote
water management: from ET modelling to services for the end users. Sensors 17, Sens. 30, 6199–6218.
1104. Das, N.N., Mohanty, B.P., 2006. Root zone soil moisture assessment using remote sensing
Calzadilla, A., Rehdanz, K., Betts, R., Falloon, P., Wiltshire, A., Tol, R.S., 2013. Climate and vadose zone modeling. Vadose Zone J. 5 (1), 296–307.
change impacts on global agriculture. Clim. Change 120, 357–374. De Lannoy, G.J., Reichle, R.H., 2016. Global assimilation of multiangle and multi-
Canisius, F., Shang, J., Liu, J., Huang, X., Ma, B., Jiao, X., Geng, X., Kovacs, J.M., Walters, polarization SMOS brightness temperature observations into the GEOS-5 catchment
D., 2018. Tracking crop phenological development using multi-temporal polarimetric land surface model for soil moisture estimation. J. Hydrometeorol. 17 (2), 669–691.
Radarsat-2 data. Remote Sens. Environ. 210, 508–518. De Loor, G.P., Hoogeboom, P., Attema, E.W., 1982. The dutch ROVE program. IEEE
Carruthers, I., Rosegrant, M.W., Seckler, D., 1997. Irrigation and food security in the 21st Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 3–11.
century. Irrigation and Drainage Systems 11, 83–101. De Wit, A.d., & Van Diepen, C. (2007). Crop model data assimilation with the Ensemble
Castillejo-González, I.L., Pena-Barragán, J.M., Jurado-Expósito, M., Mesas-Carrascosa, Kalman filter for improving regional crop yield forecasts. Agricultural and forest
F.J., López-Granados, F., 2014. Evaluation of pixel-and object-based approaches for meteorology, 146, 38-56.
mapping wild oat (Avena sterilis) weed patches in wheat fields using QuickBird Deines, J.M., Kendall, A.D., Crowley, M.A., Rapp, J., Cardille, J.A., Hyndman, D.W., 2019.
imagery for site-specific management. Eur. J. Agron. 59, 57–66. Mapping three decades of annual irrigation across the US High Plains Aquifer using
Chakrabarti, S., Bongiovanni, T., Judge, J., Zotarelli, L., Bayer, C., 2014. Assimilation of Landsat and Google Earth Engine. Remote Sens. Environ. 233, 111400.
SMOS soil moisture for quantifying drought impacts on crop yield in agricultural Delécolle, R., Maas, S., Guérif, M., Baret, F., 1992. Remote sensing and crop production
regions. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 7, 3867–3879. models: present trends. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 47, 145–161.
Chakraborty, M., Manjunath, K., Panigrahy, S., Kundu, N., Parihar, J., 2005. Rice crop Delegido, J., Verrelst, J., Meza, C., Rivera, J., Alonso, L., Moreno, J., 2013. A red-edge
parameter retrieval using multi-temporal, multi-incidence angle Radarsat SAR data. spectral index for remote sensing estimation of green LAI over agroecosystems. Eur.
ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 59, 310–322. J. Agron. 46, 42–52.
Chakraborty, S., Newton, A.C., 2011. Climate change, plant diseases and food security: an Dhau, I., Dube, T., Mushore, T.D., 2019. Examining the prospects of sentinel-2 multi-
overview. Plant. Pathol. 60, 2–14. spectral data in detecting and mapping maize streak virus severity in smallholder
Chance, E., Cobourn, K., Thomas, V., 2018. Trend detection for the extent of irrigated Ofcolaco farms. South Africa. Geocarto International 1–11.
agriculture in Idaho’s Snake river plain, 1984–2016. Remote Sensing 10, 145. Dheeravath, V., Thenkabail, P.S., Chandrakantha, G., Noojipady, P., Reddy, G., Biradar,
Chaparro, D., Piles, M., Vall-Llossera, M., Camps, A., Konings, A.G., Entekhabi, D., 2018. C.M., Gumma, M.K., Velpuri, M., 2010. Irrigated areas of India derived using MODIS
L-band vegetation optical depth seasonal metrics for crop yield assessment. Remote 500 m time series for the years 2001–2003. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 65,
Sens. Environ. 212, 249–259. 42–59.
Chauhan, S., Darvishzadeh, R., Boschetti, M., Nelson, A., 2020. Estimation of crop angle Doell, P., Mueller Schmied, H., Schuh, C., Portmann, F.T., Eicker, A., 2014. Global-scale
of inclination for lodged wheat using multi-sensor SAR data. Remote Sens. Environ. assessment of groundwater depletion and related groundwater abstractions:
236, 111488. Combining hydrological modeling with information from well observations and
Chauhan, S., Darvishzadeh, R., Boschetti, M., Pepe, M., Nelson, A., 2019a. Remote sen- GRACE satellites. Water Resour. Res. 50, 5698–5720.
sing-based crop lodging assessment: Current status and perspectives. ISPRS J. Döll, P., Siebert, S., 2002. Global modeling of irrigation water requirements. Water
Photogramm. Remote Sens. 151, 124–140. Resour. Res. 38, 8-1-8-10.
Chauhan, S., Srivastava, H.S., Patel, P., 2019b. Crop Height Estimation Using RISAT-1 Dong, T., Liu, J., Shang, J., Qian, B., Ma, B., Kovacs, J.M., Walters, D., Jiao, X., Geng, X.,
Hybrid-Polarized Synthetic Aperture Radar Data. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Shi, Y., 2019. Assessment of red-edge vegetation indices for crop leaf area index
Remote Sens. 12, 2928–2933. estimation. Remote Sens. Environ. 222, 133–143.
Chawla, I., Karthikeyan, L., Mishra, A.K., 2020. A Review of Remote Sensing Applications Doraiswamy, P., Hatfield, J., Jackson, T., Akhmedov, B., Prueger, J., Stern, A., 2004. Crop
for Water Security: Quantity, Quality, and Extremes. J. Hydrol. 585, 124826. condition and yield simulations using Landsat and MODIS. Remote Sens. Environ. 92,
Chemura, A., Mutanga, O., Dube, T., 2017. Separability of coffee leaf rust infection levels 548–559.
with machine learning methods at Sentinel-2 MSI spectral resolutions. Precis. Agric. Doraiswamy, P.C., Sinclair, T.R., Hollinger, S., Akhmedov, B., Stern, A., Prueger, J., 2005.
18, 859–881. Application of MODIS derived parameters for regional crop yield assessment. Remote
Chen, J., Lin, H., Huang, C., Fang, C., 2009. The relationship between the leaf area index Sens. Environ. 97, 192–202.
(LAI) of rice and the C-band SAR vertical/horizontal (VV/HH) polarization ratio. Int. Dorigo, W.A., Zurita-Milla, R., de Wit, A.J., Brazile, J., Singh, R., Schaepman, M.E., 2007.
J. Remote Sens. 30, 2149–2154. A review on reflective remote sensing and data assimilation techniques for enhanced
Chen, X., Dhungel, J., Bhattarai, S.P., Torabi, M., Pendergast, L., Midmore, D.J., 2011. agroecosystem modeling. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 9, 165–193.
Impact of oxygation on soil respiration, yield and water use efficiency of three crop Drusch, M., Moreno, J., Del Bello, U., Franco, R., Goulas, Y., Huth, A., Kraft, S.,
species. J. Plant Ecol. 4 (4), 236–248. Middleton, E.M., Miglietta, F., Mohammed, G., Nedbal, L., Rascher, U., Schüttemeyer,
Chen, Y., Lu, D., Luo, L., Pokhrel, Y., Deb, K., Huang, J., Ran, Y., 2018. Detecting irri- D., Verhoef, W., 2017. The FLuorescence EXplorer mission concept - ESA’s Earth
gation extent, frequency, and timing in a heterogeneous arid agricultural region using Explorer 8. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 55, 1273–1284.
MODIS time series, Landsat imagery, and ancillary data. Remote Sens. Environ. 204, Du, J., Kimball, J.S., Jones, L.A., 2016. Passive microwave remote sensing of soil moisture
197–211. based on dynamic vegetation scattering properties for AMSR-E. IEEE Trans. Geosci.
Choudhury, B., Tucker, C., 1987. Monitoring global vegetation using Nimbus-7 37 GHz Remote Sens. 54, 597–608.
Data Some empirical relations. Int. J. Remote Sens. 8, 1085–1090. Durbha, S.S., King, R.L., Younan, N.H., 2007. Support vector machines regression for
Choudhury, B., Tucker, C., Golus, R., Newcomb, W., 1987. Monitoring vegetation using retrieval of leaf area index from multiangle imaging spectroradiometer. Remote Sens.
Nimbus-7 scanning multichannel microwave radiometer's data. Int. J. Remote Sens. Environ. 107, 348–361.
8, 533–538. Easterling, W., Apps, M., 2005. Assessing the consequences of climate change for food and
Chuah, H.-T., Tjuatja, S., Fung, A.K., Bredow, J.W., 1996. A phase matrix for a dense forest resources: a view from the IPCC. Increasing Climate Variability and Change.
discrete random medium: Evaluation of volume scattering coefficient. IEEE Trans. Springer, pp. 165–189.
Geosci. Remote Sens. 34, 1137–1143. Eckhardt, D.W., Verdin, J.P., Lyford, G.R., 1990. Automated update of an irrigated lands
Ciabatta, L., Marra, A.C., Panegrossi, G., Casella, D., Sanò, P., Dietrich, S., Massari, C., GIS using SPOT HRV imagery. Photogrammetric engineering and remote sensing. (USA).
Brocca, L., 2017. Daily precipitation estimation through different microwave sensors: Eklundh, L., Johansson, T., Solberg, S., 2009. Mapping insect defoliation in Scots pine
Verification study over Italy. J. Hydrol. 545, 436–450. with MODIS time-series data. Remote Sens. Environ. 113, 1566–1573.
Claverie, M., Matthews, J., Vermote, E., Justice, C., 2016. A 30+ year AVHRR LAI and Elliott, J., Deryng, D., Müller, C., Frieler, K., Konzmann, M., Gerten, D., Glotter, M.,
FAPAR climate data record: Algorithm description and validation. Remote Sensing 8, Flörke, M., Wada, Y., Best, N., 2014. Constraints and potentials of future irrigation
263. water availability on agricultural production under climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad.
Cloude, S.R., Papathanassiou, K.P., 1998. Polarimetric SAR interferometry. IEEE Trans. Sci. 111, 3239–3244.
Geosci. Remote Sens. 36, 1551–1565. Engdahl, M.E., Borgeaud, M., Rast, M., 2001. The use of ERS-1/2 tandem interferometric
Cloude, S.R., Chen, H., Goodenough, D.G., 2013. In: Forest height estimation and vali- coherence in the estimation of agricultural crop heights. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote
dation using Tandem-X polinsar. IEEE, pp. 1889–1892. Sens. 39, 1799–1806.
Collins, W., 1978. Remote sensing of crop type and maturity. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Erten, E., Lopez-Sanchez, J.M., Yuzugullu, O., Hajnsek, I., 2016. Retrieval of agricultural
Sens. 44, 43–55. crop height from space: A comparison of SAR techniques. Remote Sens. Environ. 187,
Combal, B., Baret, F., Weiss, M., Trubuil, A., Mace, D., Pragnere, A., Myneni, R., 130–144.
Knyazikhin, Y., Wang, L., 2003. Retrieval of canopy biophysical variables from bi- Escorihuela, M.J., Quintana-Seguí, P., 2016. Comparison of remote sensing and simulated
directional reflectance: Using prior information to solve the ill-posed inverse pro- soil moisture datasets in Mediterranean landscapes. Remote Sens. Environ. 180,
blem. Remote Sens. Environ. 84, 1–15. 99–114.
Coops, N.C., Wulder, M.A., White, J.C., 2006. Integrating remotely sensed and ancillary Eswar, R., Sekhar, M., Bhattacharya, B., 2017. Comparison of three remote sensing based
data sources to characterize a mountain pine beetle infestation. Remote Sens. models for the estimation of latent heat flux over India. Hydrol. Sci. J. 62,
Environ. 105, 83–97. 2705–2719.
Crist, E.P., Cicone, R.C., 1984. A physically-based transformation of Thematic Mapper Evensen, G., 2003. The ensemble Kalman filter: Theoretical formulation and practical
data–-The TM Tasseled Cap. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 256–263. implementation. Ocean Dyn. 53, 343–367.

16
L. Karthikeyan, et al. Journal of Hydrology 586 (2020) 124905

Everitt, J.H., Escobar, D.E., Villarreal, R., Alaniz, M.A., Davis, M.R., 1993. Canopy light Gu, Y., Wylie, B.K., Howard, D.M., Phuyal, K.P., Ji, L., 2013. NDVI saturation adjustment:
reflectance and remote sensing of shin oak (Quercus havardii) and associated vege- A new approach for improving cropland performance estimates in the Greater Platte
tation. Weed Sci. 41, 291–297. River Basin, USA. Ecol. Ind. 30, 1–6.
Fan, L.-Y., Gao, Y.-Z., Brück, H., Bernhofer, C., 2009. Investigating the relationship be- Guan, K., Berry, J.A., Zhang, Y., Joiner, J., Guanter, L., Badgley, G., Lobell, D.B., 2016.
tween NDVI and LAI in semi-arid grassland in Inner Mongolia using in-situ mea- Improving the monitoring of crop productivity using spaceborne solar-induced
surements. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 95, 151–156. fluorescence. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 716–726.
Fang, H., Baret, F., Plummer, S., Schaepman-Strub, G., 2019. An overview of global leaf Guan, K., Wu, J., Kimball, J.S., Anderson, M.C., Frolking, S., Li, B., Hain, C.R., Lobell,
area index (LAI): Methods, products, validation, and applications. Rev. Geophys. D.B., 2017. The shared and unique values of optical, fluorescence, thermal and mi-
Fassnacht, K.S., Gower, S.T., MacKenzie, M.D., Nordheim, E.V., Lillesand, T.M., 1997. crowave satellite data for estimating large-scale crop yields. Remote Sens. Environ.
Estimating the leaf area index of north central Wisconsin forests using the Landsat 199, 333–349.
Thematic Mapper. Remote Sens. Environ. 61, 229–245. Guanter, L., Zhang, Y., Jung, M., Joiner, J., Voigt, M., Berry, J.A., Frankenberg, C., Huete,
Feret, J.-B., François, C., Asner, G.P., Gitelson, A.A., Martin, R.E., Bidel, L.P., Ustin, S.L., A.R., Zarco-Tejada, P., Lee, J.-E., 2014. Global and time-resolved monitoring of crop
Le Maire, G., Jacquemoud, S., 2008. PROSPECT-4 and 5: Advances in the leaf optical photosynthesis with chlorophyll fluorescence. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111,
properties model separating photosynthetic pigments. Remote Sens. Environ. 112, E1327–E1333.
3030–3043. Gumma, M.K., Thenkabail, P.S., Nelson, A., 2011. Mapping irrigated areas using MODIS
Fernandez-Moran, R., Al-Yaari, A., Mialon, A., Mahmoodi, A., Al Bitar, A., De Lannoy, G., 250 meter time-series data: A study on Krishna River Basin (India). Water 3,
Rodriguez-Fernandez, N., Lopez-Baeza, E., Kerr, Y., Wigneron, J.-P., 2017. SMOS-IC: 113–131.
An alternative SMOS soil moisture and vegetation optical depth product. Remote Gupta, R., Vijayan, D., Prasad, T., 2003. Comparative analysis of red-edge hyperspectral
Sensing 9, 457. indices. Adv. Space Res. 32, 2217–2222.
Fieuzal, R., Duchemin, B., Jarlan, L., Zribi, M., Baup, F., Merlin, O., Hagolle, O., Garatuza- Haboudane, D., Miller, J.R., Pattey, E., Zarco-Tejada, P.J., Strachan, I.B., 2004.
Payan, J., 2011. Combined use of optical and radar satellite data for the monitoring Hyperspectral vegetation indices and novel algorithms for predicting green LAI of
of irrigation and soil moisture of wheat crops. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 15, 1117–1129. crop canopies: Modeling and validation in the context of precision agriculture.
Fischer, R., 2015. Definitions and determination of crop yield, yield gaps, and of rates of Remote Sens. Environ. 90, 337–352.
change. Field Crops Research 182, 9–18. Hajj, M., Baghdadi, N., Belaud, G., Zribi, M., Cheviron, B., Courault, D., Hagolle, O.,
Fitzgerald, G.J., Maas, S.J., Detar, W.R., 2004. Spider mite detection and canopy com- Charron, F., 2014. Irrigated grassland monitoring using a time series of terraSAR-X
ponent mapping in cotton using hyperspectral imagery and spectral mixture analysis. and COSMO-skyMed X-Band SAR Data. Remote Sensing 6, 10002–10032.
Precis. Agric. 5, 275–289. Han, D., Yang, H., Yang, G., & Qiu, C. (2017). Monitoring model of corn lodging based on
Fontanelli, G., Paloscia, S., Zribi, M., Chahbi, A., 2013. Sensitivity analysis of X-band SAR Sentinel-1 radar image. In, 2017 SAR in Big Data Era: Models, Methods and
to wheat and barley leaf area index in the Merguellil Basin. Remote sensing letters 4, Applications (BIGSARDATA) (pp. 1-5): IEEE.
1107–1116. Hanasaki, N., Inuzuka, T., Kanae, S., Oki, T., 2010. An estimation of global virtual water
Franke, J., Menz, G., 2007. Multi-temporal wheat disease detection by multi-spectral flow and sources of water withdrawal for major crops and livestock products using a
remote sensing. Precis. Agric. 8, 161–172. global hydrological model. J. Hydrol. 384, 232–244.
Funk, C., Budde, M.E., 2009. Phenologically-tuned MODIS NDVI-based production Hanasaki, N., Kanae, S., Oki, T., 2006. A reservoir operation scheme for global river
anomaly estimates for Zimbabwe. Remote Sens. Environ. 113, 115–125. routing models. J. Hydrol. 327, 22–41.
Gallo, K., Daughtry, C., 1987. Differences in vegetation indices for simulated Landsat-5 Hansen, P., Schjoerring, J., 2003. Reflectance measurement of canopy biomass and ni-
MSS and TM, NOAA-9 AVHRR, and SPOT-1 sensor systems. Remote Sens. Environ. trogen status in wheat crops using normalized difference vegetation indices and
23, 439–452. partial least squares regression. Remote Sens. Environ. 86, 542–553.
Gao, B.-C., 1996. NDWI—A normalized difference water index for remote sensing of Harfenmeister, K., Spengler, D., Weltzien, C., 2019. Analyzing temporal and spatial
vegetation liquid water from space. Remote Sens. Environ. 58, 257–266. characteristics of crop parameters using Sentinel-1 backscatter data. Remote Sensing
Gao, Q., Zribi, M., Escorihuela, M., Baghdadi, N., Segui, P., 2018. Irrigation mapping 11, 1569.
using Sentinel-1 time series at field scale. Remote Sensing 10, 1495. Harou, J.J., Pulido-Velazquez, M., Rosenberg, D.E., Medellín-Azuara, J., Lund, J.R.,
García-Haro, F.J., Camacho, F., Martínez, B., Campos-Taberner, M., Fuster, B., Sánchez- Howitt, R.E., 2009. Hydro-economic models: Concepts, design, applications, and
Zapero, J., Gilabert, M.A., 2019. Climate Data Records of Vegetation Variables from future prospects. J. Hydrol. 375, 627–643.
Geostationary SEVIRI/MSG Data: Products. Algorithms and Applications. Remote Hayes, M., Decker, W., 1996. Using NOAA AVHRR data to estimate maize production in
Sensing 11, 2103. the United States Corn Belt. Remote Sensing 17, 3189–3200.
Gardner, B., Blad, B., 1986. Evaluation of spectral reflectance models to estimate corn leaf Hazell, P., Wood, S., 2007. Drivers of change in global agriculture. Philosophical
area while minimizing the influence of soil background effects. Remote Sens. Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 363, 495–515.
Environ. 20, 183–193. He, Z., Li, S., Wang, Y., Dai, L., Lin, S., 2018. Monitoring rice phenology based on
Garestier, F., Dubois-Fernandez, P.C., Papathanassiou, K.P., 2007. Pine forest height in- backscattering characteristics of multi-temporal RADARSAT-2 datasets. Remote
version using single-pass X-band PolInSAR data. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 46, Sensing 10, 340.
59–68. Heller, R.C., Johnson, K.A., 1979. Estimating irrigated land acreage from Landsat imagery
Gastellu-Etchegorry, J.-P., Lauret, N., Yin, T., Landier, L., Kallel, A., Malenovský, Z., Al [Aerial photography]. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens.
Bitar, A., Aval, J., Benhmida, S., Qi, J., 2017. DART: recent advances in remote Herrmann, I., Pimstein, A., Karnieli, A., Cohen, Y., Alchanatis, V., Bonfil, D., 2011. LAI
sensing data modeling with atmosphere, polarization, and chlorophyll fluorescence. assessment of wheat and potato crops by VENμS and Sentinel-2 bands. Remote Sens.
IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 10, 2640–2649. Environ. 115, 2141–2151.
Girotto, M., Reichle, R.H., Rodell, M., Liu, Q., Mahanama, S., De Lannoy, G.J., 2019. Hofius, D., Börnke, F.A., 2007. Photosynthesis, carbohydrate metabolism and source–sink
Multi-sensor assimilation of SMOS brightness temperature and GRACE terrestrial relations. Potato Biology and Biotechnology. Elsevier, pp. 257–285.
water storage observations for soil moisture and shallow groundwater estimation. Holzapfel, C., Lafond, G., Brandt, S., Bullock, P., Irvine, R., Morrison, M., May, W., James,
Remote Sens. Environ. 227, 12–27. D., 2009. Estimating canola (Brassica napus L.) yield potential using an active optical
Gitelson, A.A., Gritz, Y., Merzlyak, M.N., 2003. Relationships between leaf chlorophyll sensor. Can. J. Plant Sci. 89, 1149–1160.
content and spectral reflectance and algorithms for non-destructive chlorophyll as- Holzworth, D.P., Huth, N.I., deVoil, P.G., Zurcher, E.J., Herrmann, N.I., McLean, G.,
sessment in higher plant leaves. J. Plant Physiol. 160 (3), 271–282. Chenu, K., van Oosterom, E.J., Snow, V., Murphy, C., 2014. APSIM–evolution to-
Gitelson, A., Merzlyak, M.N., 1994. Spectral reflectance changes associated with autumn wards a new generation of agricultural systems simulation. Environ. Modell. Software
senescence of Aesculus hippocastanum L. and Acer platanoides L. leaves. Spectral 62, 327–350.
features and relation to chlorophyll estimation. J. Plant Physiol. 143, 286–292. Hoogenboom, G., Porter, C.H., Shelia, V., Boote, K.J., Singh, U., White, J.W., Hunt, L.A.,
Gitelson, A.A., 2004. Wide dynamic range vegetation index for remote quantification of Ogoshi, R., Lizaso, J.I., Koo, J., Asseng, S., Singles, A., Moreno, L.P., & Jones, J.W.
biophysical characteristics of vegetation. J. Plant Physiol. 161, 165–173. (2019). Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer (DSSAT) Version 4.7.5
Gitelson, A.A., Viña, A., Ciganda, V., Rundquist, D.C., Arkebauer, T.J., 2005. Remote (https://DSSAT.net). In. DSSAT Foundation, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
estimation of canopy chlorophyll content in crops. Geophys. Res. Lett. 32 (8), Hornbuckle, B.K., Patton, J.C., VanLoocke, A., Suyker, A.E., Roby, M.C., Walker, V.A.,
L08403. Iyer, E.R., Herzmann, D.E., Endacott, E.A., 2016. SMOS optical thickness changes in
Godfray, H.C.J., Beddington, J.R., Crute, I.R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J.F., Pretty, response to the growth and development of crops, crop management, and weather.
J., Robinson, S., Thomas, S.M., Toulmin, C., 2010. Food security: the challenge of Remote Sens. Environ. 180, 320–333.
feeding 9 billion people. Science 327, 812–818. Hosseini, M., McNairn, H., Merzouki, A., Pacheco, A., 2015. Estimation of Leaf Area Index
Godwin, D., 1990. A user's guide to CERES Wheat V2, 10. (LAI) in corn and soybeans using multi-polarization C-and L-band radar data. Remote
Gontia, N., Tiwari, K., 2008. Development of crop water stress index of wheat crop for Sens. Environ. 170, 77–89.
scheduling irrigation using infrared thermometry. Agric. Water Manag. 95, Houborg, R., Soegaard, H., Boegh, E., 2007. Combining vegetation index and model in-
1144–1152. version methods for the extraction of key vegetation biophysical parameters using
Gordon, N.J., Salmond, D.J., & Smith, A.F. (1993). Novel approach to nonlinear/non- Terra and Aqua MODIS reflectance data. Remote Sens. Environ. 106, 39–58.
Gaussian Bayesian state estimation. In, IEE proceedings F (radar and signal proces- Hsiao, T.C., 1973. Plant responses to water stress. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 24 (1),
sing) (pp. 107-113): IET. 519–570.
Grant, J., Wigneron, J.-P., De Jeu, R., Lawrence, H., Mialon, A., Richaume, P., Al Bitar, A., Hu, J., Liu, L., Guo, J., Du, S., Liu, X., 2018. Upscaling Solar-Induced Chlorophyll
Drusch, M., Van Marle, M., Kerr, Y., 2016. Comparison of SMOS and AMSR-E vege- Fluorescence from an Instantaneous to Daily Scale Gives an Improved Estimation of
tation optical depth to four MODIS-based vegetation indices. Remote Sens. Environ. the Gross Primary Productivity. Remote Sensing 10, 1663.
172, 87–100. Huang, J., Gómez-Dans, J.L., Huang, H., Ma, H., Wu, Q., Lewis, P.E., Liang, S., Chen, Z.,
Groten, S., 1993. NDVI—crop monitoring and early yield assessment of Burkina Faso. Xue, J.-H., Wu, Y., 2019. Assimilation of remote sensing into crop growth models:
TitleREMOTE SENSING 14, 1495–1515. Current status and perspectives. Agric. For. Meteorol. 276, 107609.

17
L. Karthikeyan, et al. Journal of Hydrology 586 (2020) 124905

Huang, W., Guan, Q., Luo, J., Zhang, J., Zhao, J., Liang, D., Huang, L., Zhang, D., 2014. Kim, Y., Jackson, T., Bindlish, R., Lee, H., Hong, S., 2011. Radar vegetation index for
New optimized spectral indices for identifying and monitoring winter wheat diseases. estimating the vegetation water content of rice and soybean. IEEE Geosci. Remote
IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 7, 2516–2524. Sens. Lett. 9, 564–568.
Iio, A., Hikosaka, K., Anten, N.P., Nakagawa, Y., Ito, A., 2014. Global dependence of field- Kira, O., Nguy-Robertson, A.L., Arkebauer, T.J., Linker, R., Gitelson, A.A., 2016.
observed leaf area index in woody species on climate: a systematic review. Glob. Ecol. Informative spectral bands for remote green LAI estimation in C3 and C4 crops. Agric.
Biogeogr. 23, 274–285. For. Meteorol. 218, 243–249.
Ines, A.V., Das, N.N., Hansen, J.W., Njoku, E.G., 2013. Assimilation of remotely sensed Klein Goldewijk, K., Beusen, A., Janssen, P., 2010. Long-term dynamic modeling of global
soil moisture and vegetation with a crop simulation model for maize yield prediction. population and built-up area in a spatially explicit way: HYDE 3.1. The Holocene 20,
Remote Sens. Environ. 138, 149–164. 565–573.
Inoue, Y., Kurosu, T., Maeno, H., Uratsuka, S., Kozu, T., Dabrowska-Zielinska, K., Qi, J., Kogan, F.N., 1995. Application of vegetation index and brightness temperature for
2002. Season-long daily measurements of multifrequency (Ka, Ku, X, C, and L) and drought detection. Adv. Space Res. 15 (11), 91–100.
full-polarization backscatter signatures over paddy rice field and their relationship Konings, A.G., Piles, M., Das, N., Entekhabi, D., 2017. L-band vegetation optical depth
with biological variables. Remote Sens. Environ. 81, 194–204. and effective scattering albedo estimation from SMAP. Remote Sens. Environ. 198,
Inoue, Y., Sakaiya, E., Wang, C., 2014. Capability of C-band backscattering coefficients 460–470.
from high-resolution satellite SAR sensors to assess biophysical variables in paddy Konings, A.G., Piles, M., Rötzer, K., McColl, K.A., Chan, S.K., Entekhabi, D., 2016.
rice. Remote Sens. Environ. 140, 257–266. Vegetation optical depth and scattering albedo retrieval using time series of dual-
Jackson, R.D., Idso, S., Reginato, R., Pinter Jr, P., 1981. Canopy temperature as a crop polarized L-band radiometer observations. Remote Sens. Environ. 172, 178–189.
water stress indicator. Water Resour. Res. 17, 1133–1138. Krieger, G., Moreira, A., Fiedler, H., Hajnsek, I., Werner, M., Younis, M., Zink, M., 2007.
Jacquemoud, S., Baret, F., 1990. PROSPECT: A model of leaf optical properties spectra. TanDEM-X: A satellite formation for high-resolution SAR interferometry. IEEE Trans.
Remote Sens. Environ. 34, 75–91. Geosci. Remote Sens. 45, 3317–3341.
Jacquemoud, S., Verhoef, W., Baret, F., Bacour, C., Zarco-Tejada, P.J., Asner, G.P., Kroes, J., Van Dam, J., Groenendijk, P., Hendriks, R., & Jacobs, C. (2009). SWAP version
François, C., Ustin, S.L., 2009. PROSPECT+ SAIL models: A review of use for vege- 3.2. Theory description and user manual. In: Alterra.
tation characterization. Remote Sens. Environ. 113, S56–S66. Kumar, S., Peters-Lidard, C., Santanello, J., Reichle, R., Draper, C., Koster, R., Nearing, G.,
Jalilvand, E., Tajrishy, M., Hashemi, S.A.G.Z., Brocca, L., 2019. Quantification of irriga- & Jasinski, M. (2015). Evaluating the utility of satellite soil moisture retrievals over
tion water using remote sensing of soil moisture in a semi-arid region. Remote Sens. irrigated areas and the ability of land data assimilation methods to correct for un-
Environ. 231, 111226. modeled processes.
Jeong, S., Kang, S., Jang, K., Lee, H., Hong, S., Ko, D., 2012. Development of Variable Labus, M., Nielsen, G., Lawrence, R., Engel, R., Long, D., 2002. Wheat yield estimates
Threshold Models for detection of irrigated paddy rice fields and irrigation timing in using multi-temporal NDVI satellite imagery. Int. J. Remote Sens. 23, 4169–4180.
heterogeneous land cover. Agric. Water Manag. 115, 83–91. Lai, Y., Pringle, M., Kopittke, P.M., Menzies, N.W., Orton, T.G., Dang, Y.P., 2018. An
Ji, R., Xie, B.-Y., Li, D.-M., Li, Z., Zhang, X., 2004. Use of MODIS data to monitor the empirical model for prediction of wheat yield, using time-integrated Landsat NDVI.
oriental migratory locust plague. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 104, 615–620. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 72, 99–108.
Jiang, Z., Huete, A.R., Didan, K., Miura, T., 2008. Development of a two-band enhanced Lawrence, H., Wigneron, J.-P., Richaume, P., Novello, N., Grant, J., Mialon, A., Al Bitar,
vegetation index without a blue band. Remote Sens. Environ. 112, 3833–3845. A., Merlin, O., Guyon, D., Leroux, D., 2014. Comparison between SMOS Vegetation
Jiao, X., McNairn, H., Shang, J., Pattey, E., Liu, J., Champagne, C., 2011. The sensitivity Optical Depth products and MODIS vegetation indices over crop zones of the USA.
of RADARSAT-2 polarimetric SAR data to corn and soybean leaf area index. Canadian Remote Sens. Environ. 140, 396–406.
Journal of Remote Sensing 37, 69–81. Lawston, P.M., Santanello Jr, J.A., Kumar, S.V., 2017. Irrigation signals detected from
Jin, N., Tao, B., Ren, W., Feng, M., Sun, R., He, L., Zhuang, W., Yu, Q., 2016. Mapping SMAP soil moisture retrievals. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44 11,860–811,867.
irrigated and rainfed wheat areas using multi-temporal satellite data. Remote Sensing Le Toan, T., Ribbes, F., Wang, L.-F., Floury, N., Ding, K.-H., Kong, J.A., Fujita, M., Kurosu,
8, 207. T., 1997. Rice crop mapping and monitoring using ERS-1 data based on experiment
Jin, X., Kumar, L., Li, Z., Feng, H., Xu, X., Yang, G., Wang, J., 2018. A review of data and modeling results. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 35, 41–56.
assimilation of remote sensing and crop models. Eur. J. Agron. 92, 141–152. Le Vine, D., Schneider, A., Lang, R., Carter, H., 1985. Scattering from thin dielectric disks.
Johnson, D.M., 2014. An assessment of pre-and within-season remotely sensed variables IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. 33, 1410–1413.
for forecasting corn and soybean yields in the United States. Remote Sens. Environ. Lee, K.-S., Cohen, W.B., Kennedy, R.E., Maiersperger, T.K., Gower, S.T., 2004.
141, 116–128. Hyperspectral versus multispectral data for estimating leaf area index in four dif-
Johnson, L.F., 2003. Temporal stability of an NDVI-LAI relationship in a Napa Valley ferent biomes. Remote Sens. Environ. 91, 508–520.
vineyard. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 9, 96–101. Lee, S.-K., Yoon, S., Won, J.-S., 2018. Vegetation Height Estimate in Rice Fields Using
Johnson, M.D., Hsieh, W.W., Cannon, A.J., Davidson, A., Bédard, F., 2016. Crop yield Single Polarization TanDEM-X Science Phase Data. Remote Sensing 10, 1702.
forecasting on the Canadian Prairies by remotely sensed vegetation indices and Lettenmaier, D.P., Alsdorf, D., Dozier, J., Huffman, G.J., Pan, M., Wood, E.F., 2015.
machine learning methods. Agric. For. Meteorol. 218, 74–84. Inroads of remote sensing into hydrologic science during the WRR era. Water Resour.
Jones, J.W., Hoogenboom, G., Porter, C.H., Boote, K.J., Batchelor, W.D., Hunt, L., Res. 51 (9), 7309–7342.
Wilkens, P.W., Singh, U., Gijsman, A.J., Ritchie, J.T., 2003. The DSSAT cropping Li, F., Crow, W.T., Kustas, W.P., 2010. Towards the estimation root-zone soil moisture via
system model. Eur. J. Agron. 18, 235–265. the simultaneous assimilation of thermal and microwave soil moisture retrievals.
Jones, M.O., Jones, L.A., Kimball, J.S., McDonald, K.C., 2011. Satellite passive microwave Adv. Water Resour. 33 (2), 201–214.
remote sensing for monitoring global land surface phenology. Remote Sens. Environ. Li, H., Han, Y., Chen, J., 2019. Capability of multidate RADARSAT-2 data to identify
115, 1102–1114. sugarcane lodging. J. Appl. Remote Sens. 13, 044514.
Kalman, R.E., 1960. A new approach to linear filtering and prediction problems. J. Basic Li, H., Liu, G., Liu, Q., Chen, Z., Huang, C., 2018. Retrieval of winter wheat leaf area index
Eng. 82, 35–45. from Chinese GF-1 satellite data using the PROSAIL model. Sensors 18, 1120.
Kamthonkiat, D., Honda, K., Turral, H., Tripathi, N., Wuwongse, V., 2005. Discrimination Li, X., Zhang, Y., Bao, Y., Luo, J., Jin, X., Xu, X., Song, X., Yang, G., 2014. Exploring the
of irrigated and rainfed rice in a tropical agricultural system using SPOT best hyperspectral features for LAI estimation using partial least squares regression.
VEGETATION NDVI and rainfall data. Int. J. Remote Sens. 26, 2527–2547. Remote Sensing 6, 6221–6241.
Karam, M.A., Amar, F., Fung, A.K., Mougin, E., Lopes, A., Le Vine, D.M., Beaudoin, A., Li, Z., Jin, X., Wang, J., Yang, G., Nie, C., Xu, X., Feng, H., 2015. Estimating winter wheat
1995. A microwave polarimetric scattering model for forest canopies based on vector (Triticum aestivum) LAI and leaf chlorophyll content from canopy reflectance data by
radiative transfer theory. Remote Sens. Environ. 53, 16–30. integrating agronomic prior knowledge with the PROSAIL model. Int. J. Remote Sens.
Karam, M.A., Fung, A.K., Lang, R.H., Chauhan, N.S., 1992. A microwave scattering model 36, 2634–2653.
for layered vegetation. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 30, 767–784. Liang, L., Di, L., Zhang, L., Deng, M., Qin, Z., Zhao, S., Lin, H., 2015. Estimation of crop
Karthikeyan, L., Pan, M., Konings, A.G., Piles, M., Fernandez-Moran, R., Kumar, D.N., LAI using hyperspectral vegetation indices and a hybrid inversion method. Remote
Wood, E.F., 2019. Simultaneous retrieval of global scale Vegetation Optical Depth, Sens. Environ. 165, 123–134.
surface roughness, and soil moisture using X-band AMSR-E observations. Remote Liu, D., Mishra, A.K., 2017. Performance of AMSR_E soil moisture data assimilation in
Sens. Environ. 234, 111473. CLM4. 5 model for monitoring hydrologic fluxes at global scale. J. Hydrol. 547,
Karthikeyan, L., Pan, M., Wanders, N., Kumar, D.N., Wood, E.F., 2017. Four decades of 67–79.
microwave satellite soil moisture observations: Part 1. A review of retrieval algo- Liu, D., Mishra, A.K., Yu, Z., 2019a. Evaluation of hydroclimatic variables for maize yield
rithms. Adv. Water Resour. 109, 106–120. estimation using crop model and remotely sensed data assimilation. Stoch. Env. Res.
Kendall, S., Holmes, H., White, C., Clarke, S., Berry, P., 2017. Quantifying lodging-in- Risk Assess. 33, 1283–1295.
duced yield losses in oilseed rape. Field Crops Research 211, 106–113. Liu, H.Q., Huete, A., 1995. A feedback based modification of the NDVI to minimize ca-
Khati, U., Singh, G., Ferro-Famil, L., 2017. Analysis of seasonal effects on forest parameter nopy background and atmospheric noise. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 33,
estimation of Indian deciduous forest using TerraSAR-X PolInSAR acquisitions. 457–465.
Remote Sens. Environ. 199, 265–276. Liu, J., Miller, J.R., Haboudane, D., & Pattey, E. (2004). Exploring the relationship be-
Khati, U., Singh, G., Kumar, S., 2018. Potential of Space-Borne PolInSAR for Forest tween red edge parameters and crop variables for precision agriculture. In, IGARSS
Canopy Height Estimation Over India—A Case Study Using Fully PolarimetricL-, C-, 2004. 2004 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (pp.
andX-Band SAR Data. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 11, 2406–2416. 1276-1279): IEEE.
Kim, Y., van Zyl, J.J., 2009. A time-series approach to estimate soil moisture using po- Liu, L., Dong, Y., Huang, W., Du, X., Luo, J., Shi, Y., Ma, H., 2019b. Enhanced Regional
larimetric radar data. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 47, 2519–2527. Monitoring of Wheat Powdery Mildew Based on an Instance-Based Transfer Learning
Kilic, L., Prigent, C., Aires, F., Boutin, J., Heygster, G., Tonboe, R.T., Roquet, H., Jimenez, Method. Remote sensing 11, 298.
C., Donlon, C., 2018. Expected Performances of the Copernicus Imaging Microwave Liu, L., Guan, L., Liu, X., 2017. Directly estimating diurnal changes in GPP for C3 and C4
Radiometer (CIMR) for an All‐Weather and High Spatial Resolution Estimation of crops using far-red sun-induced chlorophyll fluorescence. Agric. For. Meteorol.
Ocean and Sea Ice Parameters. J. Geophys. Res.: Oceans 123, 7564–7580. 232, 1–9.

18
L. Karthikeyan, et al. Journal of Hydrology 586 (2020) 124905

Liu, W., Kogan, F., 2002. Monitoring Brazilian soybean production using NOAA/AVHRR Monteith, J.L., 1977. Climate and the efficiency of crop production in Britain.
based vegetation condition indices. Int. J. Remote Sens. 23, 1161–1179. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. B, Biological Sciences 281,
Liu, Y.Y., de Jeu, R.A., McCabe, M.F., Evans, J.P., & van Dijk, A.I. (2011). Global long‐- 277–294.
term passive microwave satellite‐based retrievals of vegetation optical depth. Motohka, T., Nasahara, K.N., Oguma, H., Tsuchida, S., 2010. Applicability of green-red
Geophysical Research Letters, 38. vegetation index for remote sensing of vegetation phenology. Remote Sensing 2,
Lopez-Sanchez, J.M., Ballester-Berman, J.D., Hajnsek, I., 2010. First results of rice 2369–2387.
monitoring practices in Spain by means of time series of TerraSAR-X dual-pol images. Mulla, D.J., 2013. Twenty five years of remote sensing in precision agriculture: Key ad-
IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 4, 412–422. vances and remaining knowledge gaps. Biosyst. Eng. 114, 358–371.
Lopez-Sanchez, J.M., Ballester-Berman, J.D., Marquez-Moreno, Y., 2007. Model limita- Müllerová, J., Brůna, J., Bartaloš, T., Dvořák, P., Vítková, M., Pyšek, P., 2017. Timing is
tions and parameter-estimation methods for agricultural applications of polarimetric important: unmanned aircraft vs. satellite imagery in plant invasion monitoring.
SAR interferometry. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 45, 3481–3493. Frontiers in plant science 8, 887.
Lopez-Sanchez, J.M., Hajnsek, I., Ballester-Berman, J.D., 2011. First demonstration of Myneni, R., & Knyazikhin, Y. (2018). VIIRS/NPP Leaf Area Index/FPAR 8-Day L4 Global
agriculture height retrieval with PolInSAR airborne data. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. 500m SIN Grid V001. In N.E.L.P. DAAC (Ed.).
Lett. 9, 242–246. Myneni, R., Knyazikhin, Y., Park, T., 2015. MCD15A3H MODIS/Terra+ Aqua Leaf Area
Lopez-Sanchez, J.M., Vicente-Guijalba, F., Erten, E., Campos-Taberner, M., Garcia-Haro, Index/FPAR 4-day L4 Global 500 m SIN Grid V006. Land Processes DAAC.
F.J., 2017. Retrieval of vegetation height in rice fields using polarimetric SAR in- Myneni, R.B., Hoffman, S., Knyazikhin, Y., Privette, J., Glassy, J., Tian, Y., Wang, Y.,
terferometry with TanDEM-X data. Remote Sens. Environ. 192, 30–44. Song, X., Zhang, Y., Smith, G., 2002. Global products of vegetation leaf area and
Lunetta, R.S., Shao, Y., Ediriwickrema, J., Lyon, J.G., 2010. Monitoring agricultural fraction absorbed PAR from year one of MODIS data. Remote Sens. Environ. 83,
cropping patterns across the Laurentian Great Lakes Basin using MODIS-NDVI data. 214–231.
Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 12, 81–88. Nair, A.S., Indu, J., 2019. Improvement of land surface model simulations over India via
Luo, J., Huang, W., Zhao, J., Zhang, J., Zhao, C., Ma, R., 2013. Detecting aphid density of data assimilation of satellite-based soil moisture products. J. Hydrol. 573, 406–421.
winter wheat leaf using hyperspectral measurements. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Nendel, C., Berg, M., Kersebaum, K.C., Mirschel, W., Specka, X., Wegehenkel, M., Wenkel,
Obs. Remote Sens. 6, 690–698. K., Wieland, R., 2011. The MONICA model: Testing predictability for crop growth,
Ma, B., Dwyer, L.M., Costa, C., Cober, E.R., Morrison, M.J., 2001. Early prediction of soil moisture and nitrogen dynamics. Ecol. Model. 222, 1614–1625.
soybean yield from canopy reflectance measurements. Agron. J. 93, 1227–1234. Nguyen, H.T., Lee, B.-W., 2006. Assessment of rice leaf growth and nitrogen status by
Macelloni, G., Paloscia, S., Pampaloni, P., Marliani, F., Gai, M., 2001. The relationship hyperspectral canopy reflectance and partial least square regression. Eur. J. Agron.
between the backscattering coefficient and the biomass of narrow and broad leaf 24, 349–356.
crops. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 39, 873–884. Nhamo, L., Ebrahim, G.Y., Mabhaudhi, T., Mpandeli, S., Magombeyi, M., Chitakira, M.,
Major, D., Smith, A., Hill, M., Willms, W., Brisco, B., & Brown, R. (1994). Radar back- Magidi, J., Sibanda, M., 2019. An assessment of groundwater use in irrigated agri-
scatter and visible infrared reflectance from short-grass prairie. culture using multi-spectral remote sensing. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts
Malbeteau, Y., Merlin, O., Balsamo, G., Er-Raki, S., Khabba, S., Walker, J., Jarlan, L., A/B/C, pp. 102810.
2018. Toward a surface soil moisture product at high spatiotemporal resolution: Nilsen, E.T., Orcutt, D.M., 1996. Physiology of plants under stress. Wiley, Abiotic factors.
temporally interpolated, spatially disaggregated SMOS data. J. Hydrometeorol. 19, Norman, J.M., Kustas, W.P., Humes, K.S., 1995. Source approach for estimating soil and
183–200. vegetation energy fluxes in observations of directional radiometric surface tem-
Manavalan, P., Kesavasamy, K., Adiga, S., 1995. Irrigated crops monitoring through perature. Agric. For. Meteorol. 77, 263–293.
seasons using digital change detection analysis of IRS-LISS 2 data. Int. J. Remote Norton, A.J., Rayner, P.J., Koffi, E.N., Scholze, M., 2018. Assimilating solar-induced
Sens. 16, 633–640. chlorophyll fluorescence into the terrestrial biosphere model BETHY-SCOPE v1. 0:
Mandal, D., Hosseini, M., McNairn, H., Kumar, V., Bhattacharya, A., Rao, Y., Mitchell, S., model description and information content. Geosci. Model Dev. 11, 1517–1536.
Robertson, L.D., Davidson, A., Dabrowska-Zielinska, K., 2019a. An investigation of O’Neill, P., Chan, S., Njoku, E., Jackson, T., & Bindlish, R. (2018). Algorithm Theoretical
inversion methodologies to retrieve the leaf area index of corn from C-band SAR data. Basis Document Level 2 & 3 Soil Moisture (Passive) Data Products; Revision D. Jet
Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 82, 101893. Propulsion Lab., California Inst. Technol.: Pasadena, CA, USA.
Mandal, D., Kumar, V., McNairn, H., Bhattacharya, A., Rao, Y., 2019b. Joint estimation of Odindi, J.O., Adam, E.E., Ngubane, Z., Mutanga, O., Slotow, R., 2014. Comparison be-
Plant Area Index (PAI) and wet biomass in wheat and soybean from C-band polari- tween WorldView-2 and SPOT-5 images in mapping the bracken fern using the
metric SAR data. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 79, 24–34. random forest algorithm. J. Appl. Remote Sens. 8, 083527.
Mariotto, I., Thenkabail, P.S., Huete, A., Slonecker, E.T., Platonov, A., 2013. Oerke, E.-C., 2006. Crop losses to pests. The Journal of Agricultural Science 144, 31–43.
Hyperspectral versus multispectral crop-productivity modeling and type discrimina- Oki, T., Kanae, S., 2006. Global hydrological cycles and world water resources. Science
tion for the HyspIRI mission. Remote Sens. Environ. 139, 291–305. 313, 1068–1072.
Martens, B., Gonzalez Miralles, D., Lievens, H., Van Der Schalie, R., De Jeu, R.A., O'Shaughnessy, S.A., Evett, S.R., Colaizzi, P.D., Howell, T.A., 2012. A crop water stress
Fernández-Prieto, D., Verhoest, N., 2017. GLEAM v3: Satellite-based land evapora- index and time threshold for automatic irrigation scheduling of grain sorghum. Agric.
tion and root-zone soil moisture. Geosci. Model Dev. 10 (5), 1903–1925. Water Manag. 107, 122–132.
Mateo-Sanchis, A., Piles, M., Muñoz-Marí, J., Adsuara, J.E., Pérez-Suay, A., Camps-Valls, Otter-Nacke, S., Ritchie, J., Godwin, D., & Singh, U. (1991). A Users Guide to CERES
G., 2019. Synergistic integration of optical and microwave satellite data for crop yield Barley v. 2.10. International Fertilizer Development Center, Muscle Shoals, AL.
estimation. Remote Sens. Environ. 234, 111460. Ottosen, T.-B., Lommen, S.T., Skjøth, C.A., 2019. Remote sensing of cropping practice in
Matongera, T.N., Mutanga, O., Dube, T., Sibanda, M., 2017. Detection and mapping the Northern Italy using time-series from Sentinel-2. Comput. Electron. Agric. 157,
spatial distribution of bracken fern weeds using the Landsat 8 OLI new generation 232–238.
sensor. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 57, 93–103. Oumar, Z., Mutanga, O., 2013. Using WorldView-2 bands and indices to predict bronze
Meier, J., Zabel, F., Mauser, W., 2018. A global approach to estimate irrigated areas–a bug (Thaumastocoris peregrinus) damage in plantation forests. Int. J. Remote Sens.
comparison between different data and statistics. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 22, 34, 2236–2249.
1119–1133. Owe, M., de Jeu, R., Walker, J., 2001. A methodology for surface soil moisture and ve-
Meroni, M., Rossini, M., Guanter, L., Alonso, L., Rascher, U., Colombo, R., Moreno, J., getation optical depth retrieval using the microwave polarization difference index.
2009. Remote sensing of solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence: Review of methods IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 39, 1643–1654.
and applications. Remote Sens. Environ. 113, 2037–2051. Ozdogan, M. (2011). Exploring the potential contribution of irrigation to global agri-
Migdall, S., Bach, H., Bobert, J., Wehrhan, M., Mauser, W., 2009. Inversion of a canopy cultural primary productivity. Global biogeochemical cycles, 25.
reflectance model using hyperspectral imagery for monitoring wheat growth and Ozdogan, M., Gutman, G., 2008. A new methodology to map irrigated areas using multi-
estimating yield. Precis. Agric. 10, 508. temporal MODIS and ancillary data: An application example in the continental US.
Miller, J.R., Berger, M., Alonso, L., Cerovic, Z., Goulas, Y., Jacquemoud, S., Louis, J., Remote Sens. Environ. 112, 3520–3537.
Mohammed, G., Moya, I., & Pedros, R. (2003). Progress on the development of an Ozdogan, M., Woodcock, C.E., Salvucci, G.D., Demir, H., 2006. Changes in summer irri-
integrated canopy fluorescence model. In, IGARSS 2003. 2003 IEEE International gated crop area and water use in Southeastern Turkey from 1993 to 2002:
Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium. Proceedings (IEEE Cat. No. Implications for current and future water resources. Water Resour. Manage. 20,
03CH37477) (pp. 601-603): IEEE. 467–488.
Mirasi, A., Mahmoudi, A., Navid, H., Valizadeh Kamran, K., Asoodar, M.A., 2019. Ozdogan, M., Yang, Y., Allez, G., Cervantes, C., 2010. Remote sensing of irrigated agri-
Evaluation of sum-NDVI values to estimate wheat grain yields using multi-temporal culture: Opportunities and challenges. Remote Sensing 2, 2274–2304.
Landsat OLI data. Geocarto International, pp. 1–16. Pacheco-Labrador, J., Perez-Priego, O., El-Madany, T.S., Julitta, T., Rossini, M., Guan, J.,
Mkhabela, M., Bullock, P., Raj, S., Wang, S., Yang, Y., 2011. Crop yield forecasting on the Moreno, G., Carvalhais, N., Martín, M.P., Gonzalez-Cascon, R., 2019. Multiple-con-
Canadian Prairies using MODIS NDVI data. Agric. For. Meteorol. 151, 385–393. straint inversion of SCOPE. Evaluating the potential of GPP and SIF for the retrieval
Mladenova, I.E., Bolten, J.D., Crow, W.T., Anderson, M.C., Hain, C.R., Johnson, D.M., of plant functional traits. Remote Sens. Environ. 234, 111362.
Mueller, R., 2017. Intercomparison of soil moisture, evaporative stress, and vegeta- Paloscia, S., 1998. An empirical approach to estimating leaf area index from multi-
tion indices for estimating corn and soybean yields over the US. IEEE J. Sel. Top. frequency SAR data. Int. J. Remote Sens. 19, 359–364.
Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 10, 1328–1343. Paloscia, S., Pampaloni, P., 1992. Microwave vegetation indexes for detecting biomass
Moesinger, L., Dorigo, W., de Jeu, R., van der Schalie, R., Scanlon, T., Teubner, I., Forkel, and water conditions of agricultural crops. Remote Sens. Environ. 40, 15–26.
M., 2019. The Global Long-term Microwave Vegetation Optical Depth Climate Panda, S.S., Ames, D.P., Panigrahi, S., 2010. Application of vegetation indices for agri-
Archive VODCA. Sci. Data Discuss, Earth Syst in review. cultural crop yield prediction using neural network techniques. Remote Sensing 2,
Mohammed, G.H., Colombo, R., Middleton, E.M., Rascher, U., van der Tol, C., Nedbal, L., 673–696.
Goulas, Y., Pérez-Priego, O., Damm, A., Meroni, M., 2019. Remote sensing of solar- Papathanassiou, K.P., Cloude, S.R., 2001. Single-baseline polarimetric SAR inter-
induced chlorophyll fluorescence (SIF) in vegetation: 50 years of progress. Remote ferometry. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 39, 2352–2363.
Sens. Environ. 231, 111177. Patton, J., Hornbuckle, B., 2012. Initial validation of SMOS vegetation optical thickness in

19
L. Karthikeyan, et al. Journal of Hydrology 586 (2020) 124905

Iowa. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett. 10, 647–651. Rudorff, B., Batista, G., 1990. Spectral response of wheat and its relationship to agro-
Paul-Limoges, E., Damm, A., Hueni, A., Liebisch, F., Eugster, W., Schaepman, M.E., nomic variables in the tropical region. Remote Sens. Environ. 31, 53–63.
Buchmann, N., 2018. Effect of environmental conditions on sun-induced fluorescence Rundquist, D.C., Richard, H.O., Carlson, M.P., Cook, A.E., 1989. The Nebraska Center-
in a mixed forest and a cropland. Remote Sens. Environ. 219, 310–323. Pivot Inventory: An example of operational satellite remote sensing on a long-term
Pearson, R.L., Miller, L.D., 1972. Remote mapping of standing crop biomass for estima- basis. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens 55, 587–590.
tion of the productivity of the shortgrass prairie. In, Remote sensing of environment Salmon, J.M., Friedl, M.A., Frolking, S., Wisser, D., Douglas, E.M., 2015. Global rain-fed,
VIII, (p. 1355). irrigated, and paddy croplands: A new high resolution map derived from remote
Peña-Arancibia, J.L., McVicar, T.R., Paydar, Z., Li, L., Guerschman, J.P., Donohue, R.J., sensing, crop inventories and climate data. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 38,
Dutta, D., Podger, G.M., van Dijk, A.I., Chiew, F.H., 2014. Dynamic identification of 321–334.
summer cropping irrigated areas in a large basin experiencing extreme climatic Satalino, G., Mattia, F., Le Toan, T., Rinaldi, M., 2009. Wheat crop mapping by using
variability. Remote Sens. Environ. 154, 139–152. ASAR AP data. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 47, 527–530.
Pengra, B.W., Johnston, C.A., Loveland, T.R., 2007. Mapping an invasive plant, Scanlon, B.R., Faunt, C.C., Longuevergne, L., Reedy, R.C., Alley, W.M., McGuire, V.L.,
Phragmites australis, in coastal wetlands using the EO-1 Hyperion hyperspectral McMahon, P.B., 2012. Groundwater depletion and sustainability of irrigation in the
sensor. Remote Sens. Environ. 108, 74–81. US High Plains and Central Valley. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109, 9320–9325.
Pervez, M.S., Budde, M., Rowland, J., 2014. Mapping irrigated areas in Afghanistan over Scholes, R.J., & Biggs, R.A. (2004). Ecosystem services in southern Africa a regional as-
the past decade using MODIS NDVI. Remote Sens. Environ. 149, 155–165. sessment. CSIR.
Peters, A.J., Reed, B.C., Eve, M.D., McDaniel, K.C., 1992. Remote sensing of broom Sellers, P., 1987. Canopy reflectance, photosynthesis, and transpiration, II. The role of
snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae) with NOAA-10 spectral image processing. Weed biophysics in the linearity of their interdependence. Remote Sens. Environ. 21,
Technol. 6, 1015–1020. 143–183.
Pichierri, M., Hajnsek, I., 2017. Comparing performances of crop height inversion Shanahan, J.F., Schepers, J.S., Francis, D.D., Varvel, G.E., Wilhelm, W.W., Tringe, J.M.,
schemes from multifrequency pol-InSAR data. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Schlemmer, M.R., Major, D.J., 2001. Use of remote-sensing imagery to estimate corn
Remote Sens. 10, 1727–1741. grain yield. Agron. J. 93, 583–589.
Piles, M., Camps-Valls, G., Chaparro, D., Entekhabi, D., Konings, A.G., & Jagdhuber, T. Shao, Y., Campbell, J.B., Taff, G.N., Zheng, B., 2015. An analysis of cropland mask choice
(2017). Remote sensing of vegetation dynamics in agro-ecosystems using SMAP ve- and ancillary data for annual corn yield forecasting using MODIS data. Int. J. Appl.
getation optical depth and optical vegetation indices. In, 2017 IEEE International Earth Obs. Geoinf. 38, 78–87.
Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS) (pp. 4346-4349): IEEE. Sharma, A., Hubert-Moy, L., Buvaneshwari, S., Sekhar, M., Ruiz, L., Bandyopadhyay, S.,
Pinthus, M.J., 1974. Lodging in wheat, barley, and oats: the phenomenon, its causes, and Corgne, S., 2018. Irrigation history estimation using multitemporal landsat satellite
preventive measures. Advances in agronomy. Elsevier, pp. 209–263. images: Application to an intensive groundwater irrigated agricultural watershed in
Pokhrel, Y., Hanasaki, N., Koirala, S., Cho, J., Yeh, P.J.-F., Kim, H., Kanae, S., Oki, T., India. Remote Sensing 10, 893.
2012. Incorporating anthropogenic water regulation modules into a land surface Sharma, A.K., Hubert-Moy, L., Sriramulu, B., Sekhar, M., Ruiz, L., Bandyopadhyay, S.,
model. J. Hydrometeorol. 13, 255–269. Mohan, S., Corgne, S., 2019. Evaluation of Radarsat-2 quad-pol SAR time-series
Portmann, F.T., Siebert, S., & Döll, P. (2010). MIRCA2000—Global monthly irrigated and images for monitoring groundwater irrigation. Int. J. Digital Earth 1–21.
rainfed crop areas around the year 2000: A new high‐resolution data set for agri- Shi, J., Jackson, T., Tao, J., Du, J., Bindlish, R., Lu, L., Chen, K., 2008. Microwave ve-
cultural and hydrological modeling. Global biogeochemical cycles, 24. getation indices for short vegetation covers from satellite passive microwave sensor
Prabhakar, M., Prasad, Y., Thirupathi, M., Sreedevi, G., Dharajothi, B., Venkateswarlu, B., AMSR-E. Remote Sens. Environ. 112, 4285–4300.
2011. Use of ground based hyperspectral remote sensing for detection of stress in Shibayama, M., Takahashi, W., Morinaga, S., Akiyama, T., 1993. Canopy water deficit
cotton caused by leafhopper (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae). Comput. Electron. Agric. 79, detection in paddy rice using a high resolution field spectroradiometer. Remote Sens.
189–198. Environ. 45, 117–126.
Prasad, A.K., Chai, L., Singh, R.P., Kafatos, M., 2006. Crop yield estimation model for Shiklomanov, I.A., Rodda, J.C., 2004. World water resources at the beginning of the
Iowa using remote sensing and surface parameters. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 8, twenty-first century. Cambridge University Press.
26–33. Shu, M., Zhou, L., Gu, X., Ma, Y., Sun, Q., Yang, G., Zhou, C., 2019. Monitoring of maize
Prince, S., 1991. A model of regional primary production for use with coarse resolution lodging using multi-temporal Sentinel-1 SAR data. Adv. Space Res.
satellite data. Int. J. Remote Sens. 12, 1313–1330. Siebert, S., Burke, J., Faures, J.-M., Frenken, K., Hoogeveen, J., Döll, P., Portmann, F.T.,
Qiu, J., Gao, Q., Wang, S., Su, Z., 2016. Comparison of temporal trends from multiple soil 2010. Groundwater use for irrigation–a global inventory. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 14,
moisture data sets and precipitation: The implication of irrigation on regional soil 1863–1880.
moisture trend. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 48, 17–27. Siebert, S., Kummu, M., Porkka, M., Döll, P., Ramankutty, N., Scanlon, B.R., 2015. A
Quarmby, N., Milnes, M., Hindle, T., Silleos, N., 1993. The use of multi-temporal NDVI global data set of the extent of irrigated land from 1900 to 2005. Hydrol. Earth Syst.
measurements from AVHRR data for crop yield estimation and prediction. Int. J. Sci. 19, 1521–1545.
Remote Sens. 14, 199–210. Simonneaux, V., Duchemin, B., Helson, D., Er-Raki, S., Olioso, A., Chehbouni, A., 2008.
Raes, D., Steduto, P., Hsiao, T.C., Fereres, E., 2009. AquaCrop—the FAO crop model to The use of high-resolution image time series for crop classification and evapo-
simulate yield response to water: II. Main algorithms and software description. transpiration estimate over an irrigated area in central Morocco. Int. J. Remote Sens.
Agron. J. 101, 438–447. 29, 95–116.
Rawlins, F., Ballard, S., Bovis, K., Clayton, A., Li, D., Inverarity, G., Lorenc, A., Payne, T., Singh, D., Gupta, P., Pradhan, R., Dubey, A., Singh, R., 2016. Discerning shifting irriga-
2007. The Met Office global four-dimensional variational data assimilation scheme. tion practices from passive microwave radiometry over Punjab and Haryana. J. Water
Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society: A journal of the atmospheric Clim. Change 8, 303–319.
sciences, applied meteorology and physical oceanography 133, 347–362. Singh, U., Ritchie, J.T., & Godwin, D. (1993). A User's Guide to CERES Rice, V2. 10.
Reichle, R.H., Liu, Q., Koster, R.D., Crow, W.T., De Lannoy, G.J., Kimball, J.S., Kolassa, J., International Fertilizer Development Center Muscle Schoals.
2019. Version 4 of the SMAP Level-4 Soil Moisture Algorithm and Data. Product. 10, Skakun, S., Franch, B., Vermote, E., Roger, J.-C., Becker-Reshef, I., Justice, C., Kussul, N.,
3106–3130. 2017. Early season large-area winter crop mapping using MODIS NDVI data, growing
Reichle, R.H., De Lannoy, G.J., Liu, Q., Ardizzone, J.V., Colliander, A., Conaty, A., Koster, degree days information and a Gaussian mixture model. Remote Sens. Environ. 195,
R.D., 2017. Assessment of the SMAP level-4 surface and root-zone soil moisture 244–258.
product using in situ measurements. J. Hydrometeorol. 18 (10), 2621–2645. Somkuti, P., Bösch, H., Feng, L., Palmer, P.I., Parker, R.J., Quaife, T., 2020. A new space-
Rembold, F., Atzberger, C., Savin, I., Rojas, O., 2013. Using low resolution satellite borne perspective of crop productivity variations over the US Corn Belt. Agric. For.
imagery for yield prediction and yield anomaly detection. Remote Sensing 5, Meteorol. 281, 107826.
1704–1733. Srivastava, H.S., Patel, P., Navalgund, R.R., 2006. Application potentials of synthetic
Ritchie, J., Singh, U., Godwin, D., & Hunt, L. (1989). A user’s guide to CERES-Maize V2. aperture radar interferometry for land-cover mapping and crop-height estimation.
10. International Fertilizer Development Center, Muscle Shoals, AL. Curr. Sci. 00113891, 91.
Rivera, J., Verrelst, J., Leonenko, G., Moreno, J., 2013. Multiple cost functions and reg- Steduto, P., Hsiao, T.C., Raes, D., Fereres, E., 2009. AquaCrop—The FAO crop model to
ularization options for improved retrieval of leaf chlorophyll content and LAI through simulate yield response to water: I. Concepts and underlying principles. Agronomy
inversion of the PROSAIL model. Remote Sensing 5, 3280–3304. Journal 101, 426–437.
Roerink, G., Su, Z., Menenti, M., 2000. S-SEBI: A simple remote sensing algorithm to Steele-Dunne, S.C., McNairn, H., Monsivais-Huertero, A., Judge, J., Liu, P.-W.,
estimate the surface energy balance. Phys. Chem. Earth Part B 25, 147–157. Papathanassiou, K., 2017. Radar remote sensing of agricultural canopies: A review.
Rosema, A., Verhoef, W., Schroote, J., Snel, J., 1991. Simulating fluorescence light-ca- IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 10, 2249–2273.
nopy interaction in support of laser-induced fluorescence measurements. Remote Su, Z., 2002. The Surface Energy Balance System (SEBS) for estimation of turbulent heat
Sens. Environ. 37, 117–130. fluxes. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 6, 85–100.
Rossi, C., Erten, E., 2014. Paddy-rice monitoring using TanDEM-X. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Sulser, T.B., Ringler, C., Zhu, T., Msangi, S., Bryan, E., Rosegrant, M.W., 2010. Green and
Remote Sens. 53, 900–910. blue water accounting in the Ganges and Nile basins: Implications for food and
Rost, S., Gerten, D., Bondeau, A., Lucht, W., Rohwer, J., & Schaphoff, S. (2008). agricultural policy. J. Hydrol. 384, 276–291.
Agricultural green and blue water consumption and its influence on the global water Tao, J., Wu, W., Liu, W., 2017. Spatial-Temporal Dynamics of Cropping Frequency in
system. Water resources research, 44. Hubei Province over 2001–2015. Sensors 17, 2622.
Rötzer, K., Montzka, C., Entekhabi, D., Konings, A.G., McColl, K.A., Piles, M., Vereecken, Tarantino, C., Casella, F., Adamo, M., Lucas, R., Beierkuhnlein, C., Blonda, P., 2019.
H., 2017. Relationship Between Vegetation Microwave Optical Depth and Cross- Ailanthus altissima mapping from multi-temporal very high resolution satellite
Polarized Backscatter From Multiyear Aquarius Observations. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. images. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 147, 90–103.
Earth Obs. Remote Sens. Thenkabail, P., Dheeravath, V., Biradar, C., Gangalakunta, O.R., Noojipady, P., Gurappa,
Rouse Jr, J.W., Haas, R., Schell, J., & Deering, D. (1974). Monitoring vegetation systems C., Velpuri, M., Gumma, M., Li, Y., 2009a. Irrigated area maps and statistics of India
in the Great Plains with ERTS. using remote sensing and national statistics. Remote Sensing 1, 50–67.

20
L. Karthikeyan, et al. Journal of Hydrology 586 (2020) 124905

Thenkabail, P., GangadharaRao, P., Biggs, T., Krishna, M., Turral, H., 2007. Spectral stress index for irrigation scheduling in sugarcane fields. Agric. Water Manag. 189,
matching techniques to determine historical land-use/land-cover (LULC) and irri- 70–86.
gated areas using time-series 0.1-degree AVHRR pathfinder datasets. Photogramm. Vico, G., Porporato, A., 2015. Ecohydrology of agroecosystems: quantitative approaches
Eng. Remote Sens 73, 1029–1040. towards sustainable irrigation. Bull. Math. Biol. 77 (2), 298–318.
Thenkabail, P., Ward, A., Lyon, J., 1994. Landsat-5 Thematic Mapper models of soybean Viña, A., Gitelson, A.A., Nguy-Robertson, A.L., Peng, Y., 2011. Comparison of different
and corn crop characteristics. Remote Sensing 15, 49–61. vegetation indices for the remote assessment of green leaf area index of crops.
Thenkabail, P.S., Biradar, C.M., Noojipady, P., Dheeravath, V., Li, Y., Velpuri, M., Remote Sens. Environ. 115, 3468–3478.
Gumma, M., Gangalakunta, O.R.P., Turral, H., Cai, X., 2009b. Global irrigated area Wada, Y., Van Beek, L., Viviroli, D., Dürr, H.H., Weingartner, R., & Bierkens, M.F. (2011).
map (GIAM), derived from remote sensing, for the end of the last millennium. Int. J. Global monthly water stress: 2. Water demand and severity of water stress. Water
Remote Sens. 30, 3679–3733. resources research, 47.
Thenkabail, P.S., Schull, M., Turral, H., 2005. Ganges and Indus river basin land use/land Wada, Y., Van Beek, L.P., Van Kempen, C.M., Reckman, J.W., Vasak, S., & Bierkens, M.F.
cover (LULC) and irrigated area mapping using continuous streams of MODIS data. (2010). Global depletion of groundwater resources. Geophysical Research Letters, 37.
Remote Sens. Environ. 95, 317–341. Wagle, P., Bhattarai, N., Gowda, P.H., Kakani, V.G., 2017. Performance of five surface
Thenkabail, P.S., Smith, R.B., De Pauw, E., 2000. Hyperspectral vegetation indices and energy balance models for estimating daily evapotranspiration in high biomass sor-
their relationships with agricultural crop characteristics. Remote Sens. Environ. 71, ghum. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 128, 192–203.
158–182. Wang, C., Wu, J., Zhang, Y., Pan, G., Qi, J., Salas, W.A., 2009. Characterizing L-band
Thenkabail, P.S., Smith, R.B., De Pauw, E., 2002. Evaluation of narrowband and broad- scattering of paddy rice in southeast China with radiative transfer model and mul-
band vegetation indices for determining optimal hyperspectral wavebands for agri- titemporal ALOS/PALSAR imagery. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 47, 988–998.
cultural crop characterization. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 68, 607–622. Wang, J.R., Engman, E.T., Mo, T., Schmugge, T.J., Shiue, J., 1987. The effects of soil
Thiruvengadachari, S., 1981. Satellite sensing of irrigation patterns in semiarid areas- An moisture, surface roughness, and vegetation on L-band emission and backscatter.
Indian study. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 47, 1493–1499. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 825–833.
Thorp, K., Tian, L., 2004. A review on remote sensing of weeds in agriculture. Precis. Wang, L., Chang, Q., Yang, J., Zhang, X., Li, F., 2018. Estimation of paddy rice leaf area
Agric. 5, 477–508. index using machine learning methods based on hyperspectral data from multi-year
Tian, S., Renzullo, L., Van Dijk, A., Tregoning, P., Walker, J., 2019. Global joint assim- experiments. PLoS ONE 13, e0207624.
ilation of GRACE and SMOS for improved estimation of root-zone soil moisture and Wang, L.a., Zhou, X., Zhu, X., Dong, Z., & Guo, W. (2016). Estimation of biomass in wheat
vegetation response. Hydrology Earth System Science 23, 1067–1081. using random forest regression algorithm and remote sensing data. The Crop Journal,
Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J., Befort, B.L., 2011. Global food demand and the sustainable 4, 212-219.
intensification of agriculture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108, 20260–20264. Wiegand, C.L., Richardson, A.J., 1990. Use of spectral vegetation indices to infer leaf
Tol, C., Verhoef, W., Timmermans, J., Verhoef, A., Su, Z., 2009. An integrated model of area, evapotranspiration and yield: I Rationale. Agro. J. 82, 623–629.
soil-canopy spectral radiances, photosynthesis, fluorescence, temperature and energy Wigneron, J.-P., Jackson, T., O'Neill, P., De Lannoy, G., De Rosnay, P., Walker, J.,
balance. Biogeosciences 6, 3109–3129. Ferrazzoli, P., Mironov, V., Bircher, S., Grant, J., 2017. Modelling the passive mi-
Toomanian, N., Gieske, A., Akbary, M., 2004. Irrigated area determination by NOAA- crowave signature from land surfaces: A review of recent results and application to
Landsat upscaling techniques, Zayandeh river basin, Isfahan. Iran. International the L-band SMOS & SMAP soil moisture retrieval algorithms. Remote Sens. Environ.
journal of remote sensing 25, 4945–4960. 192, 238–262.
Treuhaft, R.N., Cloude, S.R., 1999. The structure of oriented vegetation from polarimetric Wichelns, D., Qadir, M., 2015. Achieving sustainable irrigation requires effective man-
interferometry. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 37, 2620–2624. agement of salts, soil salinity, and shallow groundwater. Agric. Water Manag. 157,
Treuhaft, R.N., Siqueira, P.R., 2000. Vertical structure of vegetated land surfaces from 31–38.
interferometric and polarimetric radar. Radio Sci. 35, 141–177. Williams, J., Jones, C., Kiniry, J., Spanel, D.A., 1989. The EPIC crop growth model.
Tsang, L., Ding, K.-H., Zhang, G., Hsu, C., Kong, J.A., 1995. Backscattering enhancement Transactions of the ASAE 32, 497–0511.
and clustering effects of randomly distributed dielectric cylinders overlying a di- Wiseman, G., McNairn, H., Homayouni, S., Shang, J., 2014. RADARSAT-2 polarimetric
electric half space based on Monte-Carlo simulations. IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. SAR response to crop biomass for agricultural production monitoring. IEEE J. Sel.
43, 488–499. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 7, 4461–4471.
Tucker, C.J., 1979. Red and photographic infrared linear combinations for monitoring Wisser, D., Frolking, S., Douglas, E.M., Fekete, B.M., Vörösmarty, C.J., Schumann, A.H.,
vegetation. Remote Sens. Environ. 8 (2), 127–150. 2008. Global irrigation water demand: Variability and uncertainties arising from
Tucker, C., Holben, B., Elgin Jr, J., McMurtrey III, J., 1980. Relationship of spectral data agricultural and climate data sets. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35.
to grain yield variation. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 46, 657–666. Wu, C., Niu, Z., Tang, Q., Huang, W., 2008. Estimating chlorophyll content from hy-
Tucker, C.J., Maxwell, E., 1976. Sensor design for monitoring vegetation canopies. perspectral vegetation indices: Modeling and validation. Agric. For. Meteorol. 148,
Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 42, 1399–1410. 1230–1241.
Tuia, D., Verrelst, J., Alonso, L., Pérez-Cruz, F., Camps-Valls, G., 2011. Multioutput Wulder, M.A., White, J.C., Coops, N.C., Butson, C.R., 2008. Multi-temporal analysis of
support vector regression for remote sensing biophysical parameter estimation. IEEE high spatial resolution imagery for disturbance monitoring. Remote Sens. Environ.
Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett. 8, 804–808. 112, 2729–2740.
Tuvdendorj, B., Wu, B., Zeng, H., Batdelger, G., Nanzad, L., 2019. Determination of Wylie, B., Harrington Jr, J., Prince, S., Denda, I., 1991. Satellite and ground-based pasture
Appropriate Remote Sensing Indices for Spring Wheat Yield Estimation in Mongolia. production assessment in Niger: 1986–1988. Int. J. Remote Sens. 12, 1281–1300.
Remote Sensing 11, 2568. Xiang, K., Ma, M., Liu, W., Dong, J., Zhu, X., Yuan, W., 2019. Mapping Irrigated Areas of
Ulaby, F., Allen, C., Eger Iii, G., Kanemasu, E., 1984. Relating the microwave back- Northeast China in Comparison to Natural Vegetation. Remote Sensing 11, 825.
scattering coefficient to leaf area index. Remote Sens. Environ. 14, 113–133. Xiao, X., Boles, S., Liu, J., Zhuang, D., Frolking, S., Li, C., Salas, W., Moore III, B., 2005.
Ulaby, F.T., Sarabandi, K., Mcdonald, K., Whitt, M., Dobson, M.C., 1990. Michigan mi- Mapping paddy rice agriculture in southern China using multi-temporal MODIS
crowave canopy scattering model. Int. J. Remote Sens. 11, 1223–1253. images. Remote Sens. Environ. 95, 480–492.
Ullah, E., 1989. Mapping flowering Paterson's Curse (Echium plantagineum) around Lake Yan, K., Park, T., Chen, C., Xu, B., Song, W., Yang, B., Zeng, Y., Liu, Z., Yan, G.,
Hume, north eastern Victoria, using Landsat TM data. Plant Prot Q 4, 155–157. Knyazikhin, Y., 2018. Generating global products of lai and fpar from snpp-viirs data:
United Nations, U. (2015). Transforming Our World, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Theoretical background and implementation. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 56,
Development. General Assembly Resolution A/RES/70/1. 2119–2137.
Van Diepen, C.v., Wolf, J., Van Keulen, H., & Rappoldt, C. (1989). WOFOST: a simulation Yang, H., Chen, E., Li, Z., Zhao, C., Yang, G., Pignatti, S., Casa, R., Zhao, L., 2015. Wheat
model of crop production. Soil use and management, 5, 16-24. lodging monitoring using polarimetric index from RADARSAT-2 data. Int. J. Appl.
van Dijk, A.I., Schellekens, J., Yebra, M., Beck, H.E., Renzullo, L.J., Weerts, A., Donchyts, Earth Obs. Geoinf. 34, 157–166.
G., 2018. Global 5 km resolution estimates of secondary evaporation including irri- Yoon, S.Y., Lee, S.-K., & Won, J.-S. (2017). Rice paddy height estimation from single-
gation through satellite data assimilation. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 22, 4959–4980. polarization TanDEM-X science phase data. In, 2017 IEEE International Geoscience
Veloso, A., Mermoz, S., Bouvet, A., Le Toan, T., Planells, M., Dejoux, J.-F., Ceschia, E., and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS) (pp. 930-933): IEEE.
2017. Understanding the temporal behavior of crops using Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2- Yuan, L., Bao, Z., Zhang, H., Zhang, Y., Liang, X., 2017. Habitat monitoring to evaluate
like data for agricultural applications. Remote Sens. Environ. 199, 415–426. crop disease and pest distributions based on multi-source satellite remote sensing
Velpuri, N., Thenkabail, P.S., Gumma, M.K., Biradar, C., Dheeravath, V., Noojipady, P., imagery. Optik 145, 66–73.
Yuanjie, L., 2009. Influence of resolution in irrigated area mapping and area esti- Yuan, L., Zhang, J., Shi, Y., Nie, C., Wei, L., Wang, J., 2014. Damage mapping of powdery
mation. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 75, 1383–1395. mildew in winter wheat with high-resolution satellite image. Remote sensing 6,
Verhoef, W., 1984. Light scattering by leaf layers with application to canopy reflectance 3611–3623.
modeling: The SAIL model. Remote Sens. Environ. 16, 125–141. Yueh, S.H., Kong, J.A., Jao, J.K., Shin, R.T., Le Toan, T., 1992. Branching model for
Verhoef, W., Bach, H., 2003. Simulation of hyperspectral and directional radiance images vegetation. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 30, 390–402.
using coupled biophysical and atmospheric radiative transfer models. Remote Sens. Yuzugullu, O., Erten, E., Hajnsek, I., 2016. Estimation of rice crop height from X-and C-
Environ. 87, 23–41. band PolSAR by metamodel-based optimization. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs.
Vermote, E.F., Tanré, D., Deuze, J.L., Herman, M., Morcette, J.-J., 1997. Second simu- Remote Sens. 10, 194–204.
lation of the satellite signal in the solar spectrum, 6S: An overview. IEEE Trans. Zaussinger, F., Dorigo, W., Gruber, A., Tarpanelli, A., Filippucci, P., Brocca, L., 2019.
Geosci. Remote Sens. 35, 675–686. Estimating irrigation water use over the contiguous United States by combining sa-
Verrelst, J., Rivera, J.P., Leonenko, G., Alonso, L., Moreno, J., 2013. Optimizing LUT- tellite and reanalysis soil moisture data. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 23, 897–923.
based RTM inversion for semiautomatic mapping of crop biophysical parameters Zebker, H.A., Villasenor, J., 1992. Decorrelation in interferometric radar echoes. IEEE
from Sentinel-2 and-3 data: Role of cost functions. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 30, 950–959.
52, 257–269. Zhang, J., Huang, Y., Pu, R., Gonzalez-Moreno, P., Yuan, L., Wu, K., Huang, W., 2019.
Veysi, S., Naseri, A.A., Hamzeh, S., Bartholomeus, H., 2017. A satellite based crop water Monitoring plant diseases and pests through remote sensing technology: A review.

21
L. Karthikeyan, et al. Journal of Hydrology 586 (2020) 124905

Comput. Electron. Agric. 165, 104943. 10, 1505.


Zhang, J., Huang, Y., Yuan, L., Yang, G., Chen, L., Zhao, C., 2016. Using satellite multi- Zhao, D., Huang, L., Li, J., Qi, J., 2007. A comparative analysis of broadband and nar-
spectral imagery for damage mapping of armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) in rowband derived vegetation indices in predicting LAI and CCD of a cotton canopy.
maize at a regional scale. Pest Manag. Sci. 72, 335–348. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 62, 25–33.
Zhang, J., Pu, R., Yuan, L., Huang, W., Nie, C., Yang, G., 2014a. Integrating remotely Zhao, F., Dai, X., Verhoef, W., Guo, Y., van der Tol, C., Li, Y., Huang, Y., 2016. FluorWPS:
sensed and meteorological observations to forecast wheat powdery mildew at a re- A Monte Carlo ray-tracing model to compute sun-induced chlorophyll fluorescence of
gional scale. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 7, 4328–4339. three-dimensional canopy. Remote Sens. Environ. 187, 385–399.
Zhang, J., Pu, R., Yuan, L., Wang, J., Huang, W., Yang, G., 2014b. Monitoring powdery Zhao, L., Yang, J., Li, P., Shi, L., Zhang, L., 2017. Characterizing lodging damage in wheat
mildew of winter wheat by using moderate resolution multi-temporal satellite ima- and canola using radarsat-2 polarimetric SAR Data. Remote Sensing Letters 8,
gery. PLoS ONE 9, e93107. 667–675.
Zhang, N., Hong, Y., Qin, Q., Liu, L., 2013. VSDI: a visible and shortwave infrared drought Zheng, Q., Huang, W., Cui, X., Shi, Y., Liu, L., 2018. New spectral index for detecting
index for monitoring soil and vegetation moisture based on optical remote sensing. wheat yellow rust using Sentinel-2 multispectral imagery. Sensors 18, 868.
Int. J. Remote Sens. 34, 4585–4609. Zohaib, M., Kim, H., Choi, M., 2019. Detecting global irrigated areas by using satellite and
Zhang, X., Qiu, J., Leng, G., Yang, Y., Gao, Q., Fan, Y., Luo, J., 2018. The potential utility reanalysis products. Sci. Total Environ. 677, 679–691.
of satellite soil moisture retrievals for detecting irrigation patterns in China. Water

22

You might also like