Geology topics

Cristina Milesi

Publications and source records attributed to Cristina Milesi.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2024

Global Food Security Support Analysis Data (GFSAD) using remote sensing in support of food and water security in the 21st century

The overarching goal of this chapter is to provide a comprehensive overview of the state-of-art of global cropland mapping procedures using remote sensing as characterized and envisioned by the “Global Food Security Support Analysis Data @ 30 m (GFSAD30)” project working group team. First, the chapter will provide an overview of existing cropland maps and their characteristics along with establishing the gaps in knowledge related to global cropland mapping. Second, definitions of cropland mapping along with key parameters involved in cropland mapping based on their importance in food security analysis, and cropland naming conventions for standardized cropland mapping using remote sensing will be presented. Third, existing methods and approaches for cropland mapping will be discussed. This will include the type of remote sensing data used in cropland mapping and their characteristics along with discussions on the secondary data, field-plot data, and cropland mapping algorithms. Fourth, currently existing global cropland products derived using remote sensing will be presented and discussed. Fifth, a synthesis of all existing products leading to a composite global cropland extent version 1.0 (GCE V1.0) is presented and discussed. Sixth, a way forward for advanced global cropland mapping is visualized.

Book chapter↗

USGS2021

Global cropland-extent product at 30-m resolution (GCEP30) derived from Landsat satellite time-series data for the year 2015 using multiple machine-learning algorithms on Google Earth Engine cloud

Executive Summary Global food and water security analysis and management require precise and accurate global cropland-extent maps. Existing maps have limitations, in that they are (1) mapped using coarse-resolution remote-sensing data, resulting in the lack of precise mapping location of croplands and their accuracies; (2) derived by collecting and collating national statistical data that are often subjective, leading to substantial uncertainties in cropland-area estimates, as well as their locations; and (3) extracted from one or more classes of a land use–land cover product in which cropland classes are not the focus of mapping, leading to their mixing with other classes and creating significant errors of omission and commission. These limitations can be overcome by producing high-resolution cropland-extent maps using satellite-sensor data, such as Landsat 30-m resolution or higher. The most fundamental cropland product is the high-resolution cropland-extent map because all higher level cropland products, such as crop-watering method (that is, whether crops are irrigated or rainfed), crop types, cropping intensities, cropland fallows, crop productivity, and crop-water productivity, are dependent on a precise and accurate cropland-extent product. Given these realities, the overarching goal of this study was to produce a Landsat satellite-derived global cropland-extent product at 30-m resolution. The work, which involved a paradigm shift in how global cropland-extent maps are produced, involved the following five key steps: (1) petabyte-scale computing that involved multiyear, 8- to 16-day, time-series Landsat 30-m resolution data for the global land surface; (2) composition of analysis-ready data (ARD) cubes; (3) creation of a large global-reference data hub for machine learning; (4) use of multiple machine-learning algorithms (MLAs) by writing software and computing in the cloud; and (5) Google Earth Engine (GEE) cloud computing. The five key steps involved nine distinct phases. First, the world was segmented into 74 agroecological zones (AEZs). Second, Landsat 8- to 16-day data were used to time-composite 10-band (blue, green, red, near-infrared, short-wave infrared band 1, short-wave infrared band 2, thermal infrared, enhanced vegetation index, normalized difference water index, and normalized difference vegetation index) Landsat 30-m resolution data cubes for every 2- to 4-month time period during 3- to 4-year periods (stated as nominal-year 2015 or, simply, 2015), along with two additional 30-m resolution bands (Shuttle Radar Topography Mission elevation, and slope) in each of the 74 AEZs. Third, more than 100,000 reference-training data samples were collected using ground data (some of which were collected using a mobile application), as well as submeter- to 5-m-resolution, very high-resolution imagery sourced from other reliable sources. Fourth, reference-training data were used to create a knowledge base for separating cropland from noncropland. Fifth, MLAs such as the pixel-based supervised random forest and support-vector machines were written on the GEE using Python and JavaScript. Sixth, object-based recursive hierarchical segmentation algorithm was used, in addition to MLAs, to overcome uncertainties. Seventh, MLAs used the knowledge base to classify and separate cropland from noncropland. Eighth, accuracy assessment was conducted by generating error matrices for each of the 74 AEZs using 19,171 independent validation-data samples. Ninth, cropland areas were computed for all countries of the world and compared with United Nation’s (UN’s) Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and other national statistics. The outcome was a Landsat-derived global cropland-extent product at 30-m resolution (GCEP30), which has an overall accuracy of 91.7 percent. For the cropland class, producer’s accuracy was 83.4 percent, and user’s accuracy was 78.3 percent. GCEP30 calculated (using direct pixel count) the global net-cropland area (GNCA) for the year 2015 as 1.873 billion hectares (~12.6 percent of the Earth’s terrestrial area). The continental cropland distribution as a percentage of GNCA was Asia, 33 percent; Europe, 25.5 percent; Africa, 16.7 percent; North America, 14.4 percent; South America, 8.1 percent; and Australia and Oceania, 2.4 percent. The worldwide cropland areas in GCEP30 for 2015 were higher by 236 to 299 million hectares (Mha) compared to national statistics reported elsewhere for the same year (for example, in Food and Agriculture Organization’s corporate statistical database [FAOSTAT] and in the monthly irrigated and rainfed crop areas [MIRCA] database). The global cropland area reported for 2015 increased by 344 Mha (22.5 percent), compared to the year 2000. During the same period (2000–2015), the world’s population increased by 20 percent. Whereas some of these areal increases are real increases in cropland areas, others are due to the types of data, methods, and approaches used. Using the highest known resolution (compared to previous coarse-resolution global products) enabled this study to capture fragmented croplands. Coarse-resolution data compute areas on the basis of subpixels, which, for a large proportion of certain land use–land cover classes, will show only a certain percentage of the total pixel area as actual area. Subpixel areas can lead to substantial uncertainties in area computation, as determining the exact fraction of cropland areas within a coarse-resolution pixel is resource intensive and subject to errors. Other innovations in GCEP30 include reference-data hubs, machine learning, and cloud computing. Cropland areas in 214 countries, territories, departments, and regions were calculated for the year 2015 using GCEP30, on the basis of UN’s global administrative unit layers (GAUL) boundaries. The 10 leading countries in terms of cropland area (as a percentage of the GNCA) were India (9.6 percent), United States (8.95 percent), China (8.82 percent), Russia (8.32 percent), Brazil (3.42 percent), Ukraine (2.32 percent), Canada (2.29 percent), Argentina (2.05 percent), Indonesia (2 percent), and Nigeria (1.91 percent). Together, these 10 countries occupy 50 percent of the global cropland, and they have 52 percent of the global population. Their combined cropland area increased by 2 percent between 2000 and 2015, compared to the substantial increase in population of 517 million (15.5 percent). Together, India, United States, China, and Russia encompass 36 percent of the total area. In the United States and Canada, from 2000 to 2015, cropland decreased by about 2 percent, whereas their populations increased by 14 and 13 percent, respectively. The additional food requirements in these 10 countries, which are caused by increased populations, as well as increasing nutritional demands, are met by production increases in existing cropland or through virtual food trade, or both. More than 18 countries, territories, departments, or regions had 60 percent or more of their geographic area as cropland: Republic of Moldova, San Marino, and Hungary had more than 80 percent of the country’s area as cropland; Denmark, Ukraine, Ireland, and Bangladesh, 70 to 80 percent; and Uruguay, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Spain, Lithuania, Poland, Gaza Strip, Czechia, Italy, India, and Azerbaijan, 60 to 70 percent. Europe and South Asia can be considered agricultural capitals of the world, on the basis of their percentages of geographic area as cropland. United States, China, and Russia, which all have high cropland areas, are ranked second, third, and fourth in the world; India is ranked first. However, the amount of cropland as a percentage of the country’s geographic area is relatively very low for United States (18.3 percent), China (17.7 percent), and Russia (9.5 percent), whereas it is 60.5 percent for India. Most African and South American countries, territories, departments, or regions have less than 15 percent of their geographic area as cropland. China and India together house 36 percent of the world’s population; however, between 2000 and 2015, the amount of China’s cropland area fell by 18.9 percent, owing to urban expansion and the abandonment of farmlands caused by demographic changes (that is, the movement of population from villages to cities). In contrast, China’s population grew by 10 percent. The amount of India’s cropland increased by 8.5 percent, whereas its population grew by 20 percent. This study showed that, out of the 10 leading cropland countries, Ukraine, Nigeria, Russia, and Indonesia showed an 18 to 31 percent increase in cropland areas, on the basis of GCEP30 by the year 2015, compared to 2000. Nigeria’s cropland area increased by 25 percent, and its population increased by 31 percent in the same period. In these countries, food security is maintained by cropland expansion, productivity increases, and virtual food trade. Nevertheless, this trend of increasing net-cropland area and productivity will likely become difficult to maintain, owing to diminishing arable lands and plateauing of 50 years of continual yield increases, requiring policymakers to explore novel and data-supported approaches to solving future food security issues. The GCEP30 product, which can be browsed at full resolution at www.croplands.org , has been released for public download and use through U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)–National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Land Processes Distributed Active Archive Center (see https://lpdaac.usgs.gov/news/release-of-gfsad-30-meter-cropland-extent-products/ ).

Professional Paper↗

USGS2015

Global Cropland Area Database (GCAD) derived from Remote Sensing in Support of Food Security in the Twenty-first Century: Current Achievements and Future Possibilities

The precise estimation of the global agricultural cropland- extents, areas, geographic locations, crop types, cropping intensities, and their watering methods (irrigated or rainfed; type of irrigation) provides a critical scientific basis for the development of water and food security policies (Thenkabail et al., 2012, 2011, 2010). By year 2100, the global human population is expected to grow to 10.4 billion under median fertility variants or higher under constant or higher fertility variants (Table 1) with over three quarters living in developing countries, in regions that already lack the capacity to produce enough food. With current agricultural practices, the increased demand for food and nutrition would require in about 2 billion hectares of additional cropland, about twice the equivalent to the land area of the United States, and lead to significant increases in greenhouse gas productions (Tillman et al., 2011). For example, during 1960-2010 world population more than doubled from 3 billion to 7 billion. The nutritional demand of the population also grew swiftly during this period from an average of about 2000 calories per day per person in 1960 to nearly 3000 calories per day per person in 2010. The food demand of increased population along with increased nutritional demand during this period (1960-2010) was met by the “green revolution” which more than tripled the food production; even though croplands decreased from about 0.43 ha/capita to 0.26 ha/capita (FAO, 2009). The increase in food production during the green revolution was the result of factors such as: (a) expansion in irrigated areas which increased from 130 Mha in 1960s to 278.4 Mha in year 2000 (Siebert et al., 2006) or 399 Mha when you do not consider cropping intensity (Thenkabail et al., 2009a, 2009b, 2009c) or 467 Mha when you consider cropping intensity (Thenkabail et al., 2009a; Thenkabail et al., 2009c); (b) increase in yield and per capita food production (e.g., cereal production from 280 kg/person to 380 kg/person and meat from 22 kg/person to 34 kg/person (McIntyre, 2008); (c) new cultivar types (e.g., hybrid varieties of wheat and rice, biotechnology); and (d) modern agronomic and crop management practices (e.g., fertilizers, herbicide, pesticide applications). However, some of the factors that lead to the green revolution have stressed the environment to limits leading to salinization and decreasing water quality. For example, from 1960 to 2000, the phosphorous use doubled from 10 million tons to 20 MT, pesticide use tripled from near zero to 3 MT, and nitrogen use as fertilizer increased to a staggering 80 MT from just 10 MT (Foley et al., 2007; Khan and Hanjra, 2008). Further, diversion of croplands to bio-fuels is already taking water away from food production; the economics, carbon sequestration, environmental, and food security impacts of biofuel production are net negative (Lal and Pimentel, 2009), leaving us with a carbon debt (Gibbs et al., 2008; Searchinger et al., 2008). Climate models predict that in most regions of the world the hottest seasons on record will become the norm by the end of the century-an outcome that bodes ill for feeding the world (Kumar and Singh, 2005). Also, crop yield increases of the green revolution era have now stagnated (Hossain et al., 2005). Thereby, further increase in food production through increase in cropland areas and\or increased allocations of water for croplands are widely considered unsustainable and\or infeasible. Indeed, cropland areas have even begun to decrease in many 3 parts of the World due to factors such as urbanization, industrialization, and salinization. Furthermore, ecological and environmental imperatives such as biodiversity conservation and atmospheric carbon sequestration have put a cap on the possible expansion of cropland areas to other lands such as forests and rangelands. Other important factors limit food security. These include factors such as diversion of croplands to biofuels (Bindraban et al., 2009), limited water resources for irrigation expansion (Turral et al., 2009), limits on agricultural intensifications, loss of croplands to urbanization (Khan and Hanjra, 2008), increasing meat consumption (and associated demands on land and water) (Vinnari and Tapio, 2009), environmental infeasibility for cropland expansion (Gordon et al., 2009), and changing climate have all put pressure on our continued ability to sustain global food security in the twenty-first century. So, how does the World continue to meet its food and nutrition needs?. Solutions may come from bio-technology and precision farming, however developments in these fields are not currently moving at rates that will ensure global food security over next few decades. Further, there is a need for careful consideration of possible harmful effects of bio-technology. We should not be looking back 30– 50 years from now, like we have been looking back now at many mistakes made during the green revolution. During the green revolution the focus was only on getting more yield per unit area. Little thought was put about serious damage done to our natural environments, water resources, and human health as a result of detrimental factors such as uncontrolled use of herbicides-pesticides-nutrients, drastic groundwater mining, and salinization of fertile soils due to over irrigation. Currently, there is talk of a “second green revolution” or even an “ever green revolution”, but clear ideas on what these terms actually mean are still debated and are evolving. One of the biggest issues that are not given adequate focus is the use of large quantities of water for food production. Indeed, an overwhelming proportion (60-90%) of all human water use in India goes for producing their food (Falkenmark, M., & Rockström, 2006). But such intensive water use for food production is no longer tenable due to increasing pressure for water use alternatives such as increasing urbanization, industrialization, environmental flows, bio-fuels, and recreation. This has brought into sharp focus the need to grow more food per drop of water leading to a “blue revolution”

Book chapter↗

USGS2012

Assessing future risks to agricultural productivity, water resources and food security: How can remote sensing help?

Although global food production has been rising, the world sti ll faces a major food security challenge. Over one billion people are currently undernourished (Wheeler and Kay, 2010). By the 2050s, the human population is projected to grow to 9.1 billion. Over three-quarters of these people will be living in developing countries, in regions that already lack the capacity to feed their populations . Under current agricultural practices, the increased demand for food would require in excess of one billion hectares of new cropland, nearly equivalent to the land area of the United States, and would lead to significant increases in greenhouse gases (Tillman et al. , 2011). Since climate is the primary determinant of agricultural productivity, changes to it will influence not only crop yields, but also hydrologic balances and supplies of inputs to managed farming systems, and may lead to a shift in the geographic location of some crops . Therefore, not only must crop productivity (yield per unit of land; kg/m 2 ) increase, but water productivity (yield per unit of water or "crop per drop"; kg/m 3 ) must increase as well in order to feed a burgeoning population against a backdrop of changing dietary consumption patterns, a changing climate and the growing scarcity of water and land (Beddington, 2010). The impact from these changes wi ll affect the viability of both dryland subsistence and irrigated commodity food production (Knox, et al. , 2010a). Since climate is a primary determinant of agricultural productivity, any changes will influence not only crop yields, but also the hydrologic balances, and supplies of inputs to managed farming systems as well as potentially shifting the geographic location for specific crops . Unless concerted and collective action is taken, society risks worldwide food shortages, scarcity of water resources and insufficient energy. This has the potential to unleash public unrest, cross-border conflicts and migration as people flee the worst-affected regions to seck refuge in "safe havens", a situation that Beddington described as the "perfect storm" (2010).

Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing↗