Detecting Sugarcane Crop Yield using Decision Tree Classifier in the District of Muzaffarnagar
The district of Muzaffarnagar is the highest sugarcane producing district in Uttar Pradesh and therefore is an important industrial district as well. The district is part of Western UP and it shares the problems of the sugar industry elsewhere in the state: unpredictable demands and crop failures. In this context, predicting sugarcane demand and informing its production can turn to be just the key to solve some of the problems the industry faces.
The existing crop forecasting method for the cultivation of sugarcane used in UP relies, to a large degree, on subjective details, centred on the expertise of engineers in the sugar and alcohol field and on information on input demand in the supply chain. The measurement of the utility of the sample detection using NDVI images from the SPOT sensor used in the sensor's determination over the ECMWF model was possible to infer the official productivity data reported in the previously selected municipalities and harvest. Significant features of the municipal productivity of a given village is listed in a decision tree, and out of the combinations of attributes the corresponding municipal productivity is rated as "Normal" on the average urban productivity scale. Using data from the NDVI time-series between 2013 to 2020, we can discern the three classes of productivity in the meanwhile. Findings indicate that productivity in January ranked as less than mean, mean, and more than mean. The findings were more successful for the class Vegetation, the participants of which were permitted to conclude about the pattern of the average federal productivity prior to.
Boken, VK & Shayewich, CF. (2002). Improving an operational wheat yield model using phenological phase-based Normalized Difference Vegetation Index. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 23, 4155-4168.
Left, JCDM, Antunes, JFG; Baldwin, DG; Emery, WJ, & Zullo Júnior, J. (2006). An automatic system for AVHRR land surface product generation. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 27, 3925-3942.
Ferencz, C., Bognár, P., Lichtenberger, J., Hamar, D., Tarcsai, G., Timár, G., Molnár, G., Pásztor, S., Steinbach, P., Székely, B., Ferencz, OE, & Ferencz-Árkos, I. (2004). Crop yield estimation by remote sensing. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 25, 4113-4149.
Greenland, D. (2005). Climate variability and sugarcane yield in Louisiana. Journal of Applied Meteorology, 44, 1655-1666.
Fernandes et al. (2006). Joint Research Center [JRC]. Meteorological data simulated by ECMWF model. Available at: http://mars.jrc.ec.europa.eu/mars/About-us/FOODSEC/Data-Distribution.
Joint Research Center [JRC]. (2006). Bulletins and publications. Available at: http://mars.jrc.ec.europa.eu/mars/Bulletins-Publications.
Labus, MP, Nielsen, GA, Lawrence, RL, & Engel, R. (2002). Wheat yield estimates using multi-temporal NDVI satellite imagery. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 23, 4169-4180.
Roerink, GJ, Menenti, M., & Verhoef, W. (2000). Reconstructing cloudfree NDVI composites using Fourier analysis of time series. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 21, 1911-1917.
Simões, MS, Rocha, JV, & Lamparelli, RAC. (2005a). Spectral variables growth analysis and yield of sugarcane. Scientia Agricola, 62, 199-207.
Simões, MS, Rocha, JV, & Lamparelli, RAC. (2005b). Growth indices and productivity in sugarcane. Scientia Agricola, 62, 23-30.
Simões, MS, Rocha, JV, & Lamparelli, RAC. (2009). Orbital spectral variables, growth analysis and sugarcane yield. Scientia Agricola, 66, 451-461.
Ali MM, Qaseem MS, Rajamani L, & Govardhan A. (2013). Extracting useful rules through improved decision tree induction using information entropy. Int. J. Inf. Sci. Techniques, 3(1), 27–41.
Alparslan E, Coskun G, & Alganci U. (2009). Water quality determination of Küçükçekmece lake, Turkey by using multispectral satellite data. Sci. World J., 9, 1215–1229.
Anderson JR, Hardy EE, Roach JT, & Witmer RE. (1976). A land use and land cover classification system for use with remote sensor data. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Avci ZU, Karaman M, Ozelkan E, & Papila I. (2011). A comparison of pixel based and object-based classification methods, a case study. Istanbul, Turkey.
Avery TE & Berlin GL. (1992). Fundamentals of remote sensing and airphoto interpretation. Prentice Hall.
Baret F & Guyot G. (1991). Potentials and limits of vegetation indices for LAI and APAR assessment. Remote Sens. Environ., 35, 161-173.
Blackburn GA. (2007). Hyperspectral remote sensing of plant pigments. J. Exp. Bot., 58, 855–867.
Buschmann C & Nagel E. (1993). In vivo spectroscopy and internal optics of leaves as basis for remote sensing of vegetation. Int. J. Remote Sens., 14, 711–722.
Chander G, Markham BL, & Helder DL. (2009). Summary of current radiometric calibration coefficients for Landsat MSS, TM, ETM+ and EO-1 ALI sensors. Remote Sens. Environ., 113, 893–903.
Congalton RG & Green K. (1999). Assessing the accuracy of remotely sensed data: principles and practices. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers.
Dai QY, Zhang CP, & Wu H. (2016). Research of decision tree classification algorithm in data mining. Int. J. Database Theory Appl., 9(5), 1–8.
Deering DW. (1978). Rangeland reflectance characteristics measured by aircraft and spacecraft sensors. Ph.D Dissertation. Texas A & M University, College Station, pp. 338.
Deering DW, Rouse JWJ, Haas RH, & Schell JA. (1975). Measuring forage production of grazing units from Landsat MSS data. In: 10th International symposium on Remote Sensing of Environment, pp. 1169–1179.
De Fries RS, Hansen M, Townshend JR, & Sohlberg R. (1998). Global land cover classifications at 8 km spatial resolution: the use of training data derived from Landsat imagery in decision tree classifiers. Int. J. Remote Sens., 19(16), 3141–3168.
Copyright (c) 2021 International Journal of Engineering and Management Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.