Global irrigated area map (GIAM), derived from remote sensing, for the end of the last millennium

P.S. Thenkabail; C.M. Biradar; P. Noojipady; V. Dheeravath; Y. Li; M. Velpuri; M. Gumma; O.R.P. Gangalakunta; H. Turral; X. Cai; J. Vithanage; M.A. Schull; R. Dutta

doi:10.1080/01431160802698919

USGS · 70037107

Global irrigated area map (GIAM), derived from remote sensing, for the end of the last millennium

P.S. Thenkabail·C.M. Biradar·P. Noojipady·V. Dheeravath·Y. Li·M. Velpuri·M. Gumma·O.R.P. Gangalakunta·H. Turral·X. Cai·J. Vithanage·M.A. Schull·R. Dutta

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

A Global Irrigated Area Map (GIAM) has been produced for the end of the last millennium using multiple satellite sensor, secondary, Google Earth and groundtruth data. The data included: (a) Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) 3-band and Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) 10 km monthly time-series for 1997-1999, (b) Syste me pour l'Observation de la Terre Vegetation (SPOT VGT) NDVI 1 km monthly time series for 1999, (c) East Anglia University Climate Research Unit (CRU) rainfall 50km monthly time series for 1961-2000, (d) Global 30 Arc-Second Elevation Data Set (GTOPO30) 1 km digital elevation data of the World, (e) Japanese Earth Resources Satellite-1 Synthetic Aperture Radar (JERS-1 SAR) data for the rain forests during two seasons in 1996 and (f) University of Maryland Global Tree Cover 1 km data for 1992-1993. A single mega-file data-cube (MFDC) of the World with 159 layers, akin to hyperspectral data, was composed by re-sampling different data types into a common 1 km resolution. The MFDC was segmented based on elevation, temperature and precipitation zones. Classification was performed on the segments. Quantitative spectral matching techniques (SMTs) used in hyperspectral data analysis were adopted to group class spectra derived from unsupervised classification and match them with ideal or target spectra. A rigorous class identification and labelling process involved the use of: (a) space-time spiral curve (ST-SC) plots, (b) brightness-greenness-wetness (BGW) plots, (c) time series NDVI plots, (d) Google Earth very-high-resolution imagery (VHRI) 'zoom-in views' in over 11 000 locations, (e) groundtruth data broadly sourced from the degree confluence project (3 864 sample locations) and from the GIAM project (1 790 sample locations), (f) high-resolution Landsat-ETM+ Geocover 150m mosaic of the World and (g) secondary data (e.g. national and global land use and land cover data). Mixed classes were resolved based on decision tree algorithms and spatial modelling, and when that did not work, the problem class was used to mask and re-classify the MDFC, and the class identification and labelling protocol repeated. The sub-pixel area (SPA) calculations were performed by multiplying full-pixel areas (FPAs) with irrigated area fractions (IAFs) for every class. A 28 class GIAM was produced and the area statistics reported as: (a) annualized irrigated areas (AIAs), which consider intensity of irrigation (i.e. sum of irrigated areas from different seasons in a year plus continuous year-round irrigation or gross irrigated areas), and (b) total area available for irrigation (TAAI), which does not consider intensity of irrigation (i.e. irrigated areas at any given point of time plus the areas left fallow but 'equipped for irrigation' at the same point of time or net irrigated areas). The AIA of the World at the end of the last millennium was 467 million hectares (Mha), which is sum of the non-overlapping areas of: (a) 252 Mha from season one, (b) 174 Mha from season two and (c) 41 Mha from continuous year-round crops. The TAAI at the end of the last millennium was 399 Mha. The distribution of irrigated areas is highly skewed amongst continents and countries. Asia accounts for 79% (370 Mha) of all AIAs, followed by Europe (7%) and North America (7%). Three continents, South America (4%), Africa (2%) and Australia (1%), have a very low proportion of the global irrigation. The GIAM had an accuracy of 79-91%, with errors of omission not exceeding 21%, and the errors of commission not exceeding 23%. The GIAM statistics were also compared with: (a) the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and University of Frankfurt (UF) derived irrigated areas and (b) national census data for India. The relationships and causes of differences are discussed in detail. The GIAM products are made available through a web portal (http://www.iwmigiam.org). ?? 2009 Taylor & Francis.

Explore related subjects

International Journal of Remote Sensing Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

P.S. Thenkabail, C.M. Biradar, P. Noojipady, V. Dheeravath, Y. Li, M. Velpuri, M. Gumma, O.R.P. Gangalakunta, H. Turral, X. Cai, J. Vithanage, M.A. Schull, R. Dutta. 2009-07-24. Global irrigated area map (GIAM), derived from remote sensing, for the end of the last millennium. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431160802698919

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Bridging remote sensing advances and management needs for small Prairie Pothole waterbodies using a multiscale accuracy assessment

Remote sensing of surface water provides a powerful tool to inform the management of waterfowl habitat, but there is little information available to directly assess the relative accuracy of different remote sensing datasets. Our objective was to understand how the characteristics of remotely sensed inundation datasets inform dataset accuracy, the reliable detection of small waterbodies, the distribution of surface water, observation frequency and completeness of data: all attributes relevant to the management of waterfowl habitat. We compared surface water composites from 10 remotely sensed surface water datasets from 2016 to 2021 to in-situ surface water data for three complexes of small waterbodies in the U.S. Prairie Pothole Region and evaluated their accuracy at the pixel, waterbody and local landscape scales. While all products had high per-pixel balanced accuracies (>0.75), we found distinct differences in waterbody area and landscape distribution estimates among datasets. Sentinel-1-based datasets provided a more complete set of observations over time and were more sensitive in detecting water presence in smaller waterbodies but were less accurate at identifying waterbody area than other datasets evaluated. Landsat datasets, alternatively, produced simpler landscape distributions that largely omitted the smallest waterbodies. While the datasets that either fused Sentinel-1 and −2 data collections or utilized local training data had the highest performances (e.g. balanced accuracy = 0.92), all datasets had use-case scenarios for which they may be informative. Our comparisons revealed differences that were not evident in traditional pixel-scale accuracy assessment, such as an 18-fold difference in the number of inundated waterbodies identified across remote sensing datasets. These findings provide novel insights for waterfowl conservation management on howremote sensing datasets may differ in their ability to monitor annual spring surface water presence within landscapes dominated by small waterbodies, such as the Prairie Pothole Region.

Minnesota, North Dakota↗

USGS2026

Sentinel-2 for chlorophyll-a water quality monitoring: A review of validation evidence and application potential

Water quality monitoring is integral to preserving the health of freshwater ecosystems, and satellite remote sensing has emerged as one monitoring method. Sentinel-2, in particular, has been valuable for water quality monitoring due to its 5-day global temporal revisit time and spatial resolution that ranges from 10 to 60 metres. Sentinel-2 can be used to measure and monitor chlorophyll-a, which historically has been used as an indicator of water quality, eutrophication and harmful algal blooms. Our goal was to review aquatic chlorophyll-a Sentinel-2 research to assess the types of validation evidence reported. Validation evidence is defined here as the set of information key to assessing algorithm performance, and include the spatial and temporal scales of satellite validation, reported in situ sampling method context information, demonstration of validation results through plots, and appropriate algorithm performance metrics. We highlight how the body of literature collectively contributes to advancing a national scale chlorophyll-a product that could support future resource management applications. Our review of 122 published studies indicated that much of the validation evidence corresponded to early stages, as defined by the NASA data maturity framework, due to a limited focus on individual lakes and limited detail on methodology for reproducibility. Prioritizing data accessibility for both in situ data and satellite workflows used in published studies; reporting methods with transparency and consistency; and using standard algorithm performance metrics could provide a consistent framework to support and enhance the utility of satellite inland water quality research. These three quality assurance mechanisms can promote effective evaluation of approaches for remote sensing of chlorophyll-a. Adopting these quality criteria could enable the integration of validation evidence from multiple studies, supporting more spatially and temporally representative products that would advance these approaches towards maturation for broader application.

International Journal of Remote Sensing↗

USGS2025

Deep learning approaches on Landsat observations: A review and meta-analysis

Although multiple summary reviews of deep learning in remote sensing have been conducted, the field currently lacks a comprehensive analysis of deep learning utilizing Landsat observations in single time pixel-based classification, both qualitatively and quantitatively. This study addresses this gap by conducting a systematic review based on 352 case studies extracted from 279 peer-reviewed articles that supported direct comparisons across deep learning and traditional classifiers. Qualitatively, our findings are as follows: (i) Two dimensional Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) remain the dominant methods; however, exploring other architectures is becoming a growing trend. (ii) Most studies focused on single countries (e.g., China, USA, and India) and the last decade, (iii) Sentinel-2 are the most commonly fused sensors, and vegetation indices are the most commonly used spectral indices. The quantitative meta-analysis revealed that Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) offer an approximate 5% improvement for non-DNN accuracy of 80%, with potentially higher improvements for more challenging tasks. By contrasting between popular DNN methods, UNets achieve higher overall accuracy (OA) than CNNs (approximately 10% UNet improvement when CNN OA is at 80%). However, UNets are more challenging to implement because they require labels for large contiguous reference patches, while CNNs, at least at 30m Landsat pixel, pose lower spatial requirements. In another comparison, Transformers achieve higher OA than CNNs (approximately 5% Transformer improvement when CNN OA is at 80%), although the accuracy improvements are smaller compared to the increases associated with UNet benefits. With greater flexibility and more standardized architecture, Transformers can potentially simplify the design process of models. However, Transformers also face challenges having higher computational resource and memory requirements. Increasing availability of reference datasets, further algorithmic developments in the machine learning field, and improvements in cloud-based computing power and data storage, could increase the utility of deep learning methods on Landsat observations.

International Journal of Remote Sensing↗