IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2022i10p1752-d937037.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Estimating Groundnut Yield in Smallholder Agriculture Systems Using PlanetScope Data

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Kpienbaareh

    (Department of Geography, Geology and the Environment, Illinois State University, 104 Felmley Hall, Normal, IL 61790-4000, USA)

  • Kamaldeen Mohammed

    (Department of Geography, University of Western Ontario, 151 Richmond St, London, ON N6A 3K7, Canada)

  • Isaac Luginaah

    (Department of Geography, University of Western Ontario, 151 Richmond St, London, ON N6A 3K7, Canada)

  • Jinfei Wang

    (Department of Geography, University of Western Ontario, 151 Richmond St, London, ON N6A 3K7, Canada)

  • Rachel Bezner Kerr

    (Department of Global Development, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA)

  • Esther Lupafya

    (Soils, Food and Healthy Communities (SFHC), Ekwendeni P.O. Box 36, Malawi)

  • Laifolo Dakishoni

    (Soils, Food and Healthy Communities (SFHC), Ekwendeni P.O. Box 36, Malawi)

Abstract

Crop yield is related to household food security and community resilience, especially in smallholder agricultural systems. As such, it is crucial to accurately estimate within-season yield in order to provide critical information for farm management and decision making. Therefore, the primary objective of this paper is to assess the most appropriate method, indices, and growth stage for predicting the groundnut yield in smallholder agricultural systems in northern Malawi. We have estimated the yield of groundnut in two smallholder farms using the observed yield and vegetation indices (VIs), which were derived from multitemporal PlanetScope satellite data. Simple linear, multiple linear (MLR), and random forest (RF) regressions were applied for the prediction. The leave-one-out cross-validation method was used to validate the models. The results showed that (i) of the modelling approaches, the RF model using the five most important variables (RF5) was the best approach for predicting the groundnut yield, with a coefficient of determination ( R 2 ) of 0.96 and a root mean square error (RMSE) of 0.29 kg/ha, followed by the MLR model ( R 2 = 0.84, RMSE = 0.84 kg/ha); in addition, (ii) the best within-season stage to accurately predict groundnut yield is during the R5/beginning seed stage. The RF5 model was used to estimate the yield for four different farms. The estimated yields were compared with the total reported yields from the farms. The results revealed that the RF5 model generally accurately estimated the groundnut yields, with the margins of error ranging between 0.85% and 11%. The errors are within the post-harvest loss margins in Malawi. The results indicate that the observed yield and VIs, which were derived from open-source remote sensing data, can be applied to estimate yield in order to facilitate farming and food security planning.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Kpienbaareh & Kamaldeen Mohammed & Isaac Luginaah & Jinfei Wang & Rachel Bezner Kerr & Esther Lupafya & Laifolo Dakishoni, 2022. "Estimating Groundnut Yield in Smallholder Agriculture Systems Using PlanetScope Data," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-19, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:10:p:1752-:d:937037
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/10/1752/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/10/1752/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kate Ambler & Alan de Brauw & Susan Godlonton, 2018. "Measuring postharvest losses at the farm level in Malawi," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 62(1), pages 139-160, January.
    2. Lowder, Sarah K. & Skoet, Jakob & Raney, Terri, 2016. "The Number, Size, and Distribution of Farms, Smallholder Farms, and Family Farms Worldwide," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 16-29.
    3. Edith Olmos-Trujillo & Julián González-Trinidad & Hugo Júnez-Ferreira & Anuard Pacheco-Guerrero & Carlos Bautista-Capetillo & Claudia Avila-Sandoval & Eric Galván-Tejada, 2020. "Spatio-Temporal Response of Vegetation Indices to Rainfall and Temperature in A Semiarid Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-18, March.
    4. Rodney Lunduka & Jacob Ricker-Gilbert & Monica Fisher, 2013. "What are the farm-level impacts of Malawi's farm input subsidy program? A critical review," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 44(6), pages 563-579, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mohammed, Kamaldeen & Batung, Evans & Saaka, Sulemana Ansumah & Kansanga, Moses Mosonsieyiri & Luginaah, Isaac, 2023. "Determinants of mechanized technology adoption in smallholder agriculture: Implications for agricultural policy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Schaafsma, Marije & Ferrini, Silvia & Turner, R. Kerry, 2019. "Assessing smallholder preferences for incentivised climate-smart agriculture using a discrete choice experiment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    2. Luis Bauluz & Yajna Govind & Filip Novokmet, 2020. "Global Land Inequality," PSE Working Papers halshs-03022318, HAL.
    3. Godfred Addai & Jungho Suh & Douglas Bardsley & Guy Robinson & Lawrence Guodaar, 2024. "Exploring sustainable development within rural regions in Ghana: A rural web approach," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(4), pages 3890-3907, August.
    4. Yoko Kijima, 2022. "Effect of Nigeria’s e-voucher input subsidy program on fertilizer use, rice production, and household income," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 14(4), pages 919-935, August.
    5. Livia Marchetti & Valentina Cattivelli & Claudia Cocozza & Fabio Salbitano & Marco Marchetti, 2020. "Beyond Sustainability in Food Systems: Perspectives from Agroecology and Social Innovation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-24, September.
    6. Raymond Boadi Frempong, 2023. "Do subsidies on seed and fertilizer lead to child labour? Evidence from Malawi," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 41(2), March.
    7. Holden , Stein & Fischer, Monica, 2015. "Can Adoption of Improved Maize Varieties Help Smallholder Farmers Adapt to Drought? Evidence from Malawi," CLTS Working Papers 1/15, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Centre for Land Tenure Studies, revised 11 Oct 2019.
    8. Fisher, Monica & Kandiwa, Vongai, 2014. "Can agricultural input subsidies reduce the gender gap in modern maize adoption? Evidence from Malawi," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 101-111.
    9. Fujimoto, Takefumi & Suzuki, Aya, 2021. "Do Fertilizer and Seed Subsidies Strengthen Farmers' Market Participation? the Impact of Tanzania NAIVS on Farmers' Purchase of Agricultural Inputs and Their Maize-Selling Activities," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315044, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Hurley, Mason, 2016. "Re-examining Changes in Farm Size Distributions Worldwide Using a Modified Generalized Method of Moments Approach," Master's Theses and Plan B Papers 249287, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    11. Yuewen Huo & Songlin Ye & Zhou Wu & Fusuo Zhang & Guohua Mi, 2022. "Barriers to the Development of Agricultural Mechanization in the North and Northeast China Plains: A Farmer Survey," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-14, February.
    12. Dang, Hai-Anh H & Carletto, Calogero, 2022. "Recall Bias Revisited: Measure Farm Labor Using Mixed-Mode Surveys and Multiple Imputation," IZA Discussion Papers 14997, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Hung‐Hao Chang & Ashok K. Mishra & Tzong‐Haw Lee, 2019. "A supply‐side analysis of agritourism: Evidence from farm‐level agriculture census data in Taiwan," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(3), pages 521-548, July.
    14. Peipei Yang & Wenxu Dong & Marius Heinen & Wei Qin & Oene Oenema, 2022. "Soil Compaction Prevention, Amelioration and Alleviation Measures Are Effective in Mechanized and Smallholder Agriculture: A Meta-Analysis," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-18, April.
    15. Regan, Courtney M. & Connor, Jeffery D. & Summers, David M. & Settre, Claire & O’Connor, Patrick J. & Cavagnaro, Timothy R., 2020. "The influence of crediting and permanence periods on Australian forest-based carbon offset supply," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    16. Ruth Hill & Carolina Mejia-Mantilla & Kathryn Vasilaky, 2021. "Is the Price Right? Returns to Input Adoption in Uganda," Working Papers 2105, California Polytechnic State University, Department of Economics.
    17. T. S. Amjath-Babu & Pramod K. Aggarwal & Sonja Vermeulen, 2019. "Climate action for food security in South Asia? Analyzing the role of agriculture in nationally determined contributions to the Paris agreement," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(3), pages 283-298, March.
    18. Rauch, Theo & Brüntrup, Michael, 2021. "Approaches for supporting smallholders in the Global South: Contentious issues, experiences, syntheses," Briefing Papers 1/2021, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
    19. Luciana Delgado & Monica Schuster & Maximo Torero, 2021. "On the origins of food loss," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(2), pages 750-780, June.
    20. Britos, Braulio & Hernandez, Manuel A. & Robles, Miguel & Trupkin, Danilo R., 2022. "Land market distortions and aggregate agricultural productivity: Evidence from Guatemala," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:10:p:1752-:d:937037. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.