Suchergebnisse

Crop phenology can be defined as the study of biological processes such as emergence, flowering, and senescence that are associated with and affected by environmental growing conditions. The ability to reliably detect crop phenology and its spatial-temporal variability is critical for farmers, policymakers, and government agencies, since it has implications for the entire food chain. Currently, two methods are the most used to report crop phenology. Land surface phenology provides insight into the overall trend, whereas USDA-NASS weekly reports provide insight into the development of specific crops at the regional level. High-cadence earth observations may be able to improve the accuracy of these estimations and bring more precise crop phenology classifications closer to what farmers need. The use of robust classifiers (e.g., random forest, RF) to manage large data sets is required to successfully achieve this goal. This study compared the output of an RF classifier model using weather, two different satellite sources (Planet Fusion; PF and Sentinel-2; S-2), and ground truth data to improve maize (Zea mays L.) crop phenology classification during the 2017 growing season in Kansas. Our findings indicate that high-cadence (PF) data can enhance crop classification metrics (f1-score = 0.94) as compared to S-2 (f1-score = 0.86). This study emphasizes the significance of very high temporal resolution (daily) earth observation data for agricultural crop monitoring and decision-making tools.

For agriculture and land management to improve natural capital over whole landscapes, social cooperation has long been required. The political economy of the later 20th and early 21st centuries prioritised unfettered individual action over the collective, and many rural institutions were harmed or destroyed. Since then, a wide range of social movements, networks and federations have emerged to support transitions toward sustainability and equity. Here we focus on social capital manifested as intentionally-formed collaborative groups within specific geographic territories. These groups focus on 1) integrated pest management; 2) forests; 3) land; 4) water; 5) pastures; 6) support services; 7) innovation platforms; 8) small-scale systems. We show across 122 initiatives in 55 countries that the number of groups has grown from 0.5M (at 2000) to 8.54M (2020). The area of land transformed by the 170-255M group members is 300 Mha, mostly in less-developed countries (98% groups; 94% area). Farmers and land managers working with scientists and extensionists in these groups have improved both environmental outcomes and agricultural productivity. In some cases, changes to national or regional policy supported this growth in groups. Together with other movements, these social groups could now support further transitions towards policies and behaviours for global sustainability.

Non-technical summary Until the past half-century, all agriculture and land management was framed by local institutions strong in social capital. But neoliberal forms of development came to undermine existing structures, thus reducing sustainability and equity. The past 20 years, though, have seen the deliberate establishment of more than 8 million new social groups across the world. This restructuring and growth of rural social capital within specific territories is leading to increased productivity of agricultural and land management systems, with particular benefits for those previously excluded. Further growth would occur with more national and regional policy support. Technical summary For agriculture and land management to improve natural capital over whole landscapes, social cooperation has long been required. The political economy of the later twentieth and early twenty-first centuries prioritized unfettered individual action over the collective, and many rural institutions were harmed or destroyed. Since then, a wide range of social movements, networks and federations have emerged to support transitions towards sustainability and equity. Here, we focus on social capital manifested as intentionally formed collaborative groups within specific geographic territories. These groups focus on: (1) integrated pest management; (2) forests; (3) land; (4) water; (5) pastures; (6) support services; (7) innovation platforms; and (8) small-scale systems. We show across 122 initiatives in 55 countries that the number of groups has grown from 0.50 million (in 2000) to 8.54 million (in 2020). The area of land transformed by the 170–255 million group members is 300 Mha, mostly in less-developed countries (98% groups; 94% area). Farmers and land managers working with scientists and extensionists in these groups have improved both environmental outcomes and agricultural productivity. In some cases, changes to national or regional policy supported this growth in groups. Together with other movements, these social groups ...