Field Crops Research 236 (2019) 1–13

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Field Crops Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fcr

Use of remote sensing to predict the optimal harvest date of corn T

a,b a,⁎ b
Jin Xu , Jihua Meng , Lindi J. Quackenbush
a
Key Lab of Digital Earth, Institute of Remote Sensing and Digital Earth, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
b
Department of Environmental Resources Engineering, State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, 1 Forestry Drive, Syracuse, NY 13210,
United States

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Accurate prediction of optimal harvest date (OHD) is important to maximize the yield of corn as it approaches
Corn kernel moisture maturity. Yield loss occurs if harvest occurs in advance of, or is delayed past, OHD; both scenarios are un-
Canopy chlorophyll content desirable. If corn is harvested prematurely, high residual moisture makes it prone to mildew during storage,
which produces aflatoxin. The grain quality then deteriorates, leading to a serious decrease in yield. If corn is
harvested too late, the crop quality declines severely. Previous studies have demonstrated the utility of three
corn kernel indicators (kernel moisture, milk line, black layer) in predicting corn harvest date; however, these
indicators do not satisfy the demand of modern agriculture. Therefore, in this study, remote sensing techniques,
which have proven useful in the application of Precision Agriculture, were used for timely estimation of OHD for
large-area crops. We proposed a new method for predicting corn OHD in fields using remote sensing by assessing
corn kernel moisture (CKM) and identifying an effective biochemical indicator to relate OHD and remote sensing
data. We estimated CKM using canopy chlorophyll content (CCC), a significant biochemical parameter that can
be estimated from remote sensing images using PROSAIL, a popular used radiative transfer model. Since CKM
decreases at a regular rate after entering the maturity period, OHD can be predicted based on the estimated CKM
using a baseline assumption that OHD occurs when CKM drops to 30%. The prediction method was evaluated by
analyzing measured CKM, and the temporal variation in one hundred-grain weight and yield. The results of this
study enabled us to successfully and accurately estimate CKM using a non-linear model (R2 = 0.92) and predict
CKM (R2 = 0.64) and corn OHD. This study provides new avenues for predicting crop OHD using remote sensing
multispectral imagery and suggests that remote sensing techniques are effective for accurately predicting corn
OHD across large areas.

1. Introduction
Corn is a grain crop widely grown across the globe, with large
acreage and typically high yield. According to a United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) report on World Agricultural
Production, global corn acreage in 2018 was 183.88 million hectares
(ha) (USDA, 2018). China and the United States are the largest corn
planting countries with 36.50 and 32.66 million ha, respectively. China
is the world's second-largest producer of corn, behind the United States,
particularly the Heilongjiang province in northeast China, where pro-
duction is approximately 30 million tons per year. The high level of
corn production makes corn an integral part of the national economy
and it plays a significant role in food security and industry. Tradition-
ally, corn was grown mainly for human consumption with some use for
animal feed and as a base for industrial products such as oils, syrup, and
starch (Tolera et al., 1998). In September 2018, an annual investigation
of corn supply and demand estimates in the United States indicated that
about 45% corn was going into ethanol and by-products including
distillers’ grains, corn gluten feed, corn gluten meal, and corn oil
(USDA, 2018) while in China, 31% corn was used for industries and
61% was used for animal feed. Due to the great demand, the ending
stocks of corn for September 2018 in China were negative 22.38 million
tons, which showed the severity and significance to increase the corn
yield to meet the market demand.
The growth period of corn can be broadly divided into vegetative
and reproductive stages. The reproductive stage comprises six sub-
stages: silking, blistering, milking, doughing, denting, and physiological
maturity (PM). PM occurs at the end of the reproductive stage ap-
proximately 60 days after silking and 20 days after denting (Hanway,
1963; Howell et al., 1998). However, the definition of PM can vary and
different investigators may specify a shorter or a longer period
(Hanway, 1963). If corn is harvested prematurely, yield loss occurs

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mengjh@radi.ac.cn (J. Meng).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2019.03.003
Received 29 December 2015; Received in revised form 14 February 2019; Accepted 4 March 2019
0378-4290/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
J. Xu, et al.
because the high level of moisture makes grain difficult to store and
prone to mildew, which produces potentially carcinogenic aflatoxin.
Conversely, late harvesting leads to quality reduction. Consequently,
the accuracy of estimating corn optimal harvest date (OHD) greatly
influences final yield and quality of corn grain. To maximize the pro-
duction of corn without compromising the quality, and to make har-
vesting more efficient and flexible, several studies have described
methods involved in some indicators for predicting the optimal harvest
time (Afuakwa and Crookston, 1984; Baker, 1971).
Corn kernels continue to gain seed weight until PM is reached. The
fully ripe stage represents the OHD of corn, thus the OHD is determined
by predicting the maturity time. Several traditional agronomical
methods are available to estimate corn maturity, with three primary
approaches: grain moisture, position of kernel milk line, and kernel
black layer formation. The grain moisture of corn is the most frequently
used indicator for determining harvest time. Previous studies have de-
monstrated that corn kernel moisture (CKM) gradually declines from
about 85% during the silking stage (Hanway, 1986) to around 30%
when the crop is fully mature (Abendroth et al., 2009; Pordesimo et al.,
2004; Schmidt and Hallauer, 1966; Tolera et al., 1998). The moisture
cannot be identified visually, hence moisture-based methods either
require time to dry the grain or the use of an electronic tester. His-
torically electronic testers were unreliable when CKM was above 25%
(Baker, 1971). However, recently, the reliability of electronic kernel
moisture testers has been improved to consider CKM up to 35% (e.g.,
Grain Moisture Meter: model LDS-1H). The position of the kernel milk
line is another demonstrated method to visually determine corn ma-
turity. The half milk line stage is easily identifiable and useful for pre-
harvest planning purposes because it indicates that kernels containing
40% moisture are 2–3 weeks from harvest. The kernel milk line diag-
nosis can achieve approximately 95% of normal yield (Afuakwa and
Crookston, 1984). Kernel black layer formation is also considered a
reliable indicator of PM (Gilmore and Rogers, 1958). PM is indicated by
a black layer (Daynard and Duncan, 1969) located within the base of a
kernel. It typically takes around 20 days for the milk line to progress
from the kernel tip to the base, and approximately ten more days to
reach PM. Afuakwa and Crookston (1984) showed that both kernel
black layer and milk line approaches could be used to visually de-
termine grain maturity, eliminating the need for periodic sampling to
evaluate kernel moisture and tabulate growing-degree-day. Kernel milk
line is more useful for monitoring grain maturation before PM
(Afuakwa and Crookston, 1984). However, considering the extensive
area of the farmlands, the discrepancy in sowing time, and the differ-
ence in environmental stresses and variation in maturity time, the use
of these indicators has two significant drawbacks: (1) correct use of
physical indicators of corn kernels to predict optimal harvest date de-
pends on user judgment, hence prediction results are strongly influ-
enced by subjective factors, and (2) it is not feasible for farm managers
to observe these maturity indicators for every plot in order to predict
the OHD.
Remote sensing is a non-destructive approach that can be used to
estimate physiological variation in canopy properties, such as chlor-
ophyll content (Croft et al., 2013), leaf area index (LAI) (Rivera et al.,
2013), and water content (Clevers et al., 2010). Remote sensing is ad-
vantageous because it can be used for near real-time, dynamic, and
large-scale studies of large areas of the land surface (Ceccato et al.,
2001; Gitelson et al., 2005; Wu et al., 2010). Remote sensing techniques
are increasingly being used in Precision Agriculture (PA) and agronomy
(Wu et al., 2012) and can provide a timely and accurate picture of the
agricultural sector, with capacity to gather information over a large
area with high revisit frequency (Atzberger, 2013). Remote sensing has
been used in a wide range of agricultural applications. These include
the monitoring of crop yield and biomass, crop nutrient and water
stress, infestation of weeds, insects and plant diseases, and soil prop-
erties such as organic matter, moisture, and clay content, and pH, or
salinity (Mulla, 2013). Previous studies have supported the use of
2
Field Crops Research 236 (2019) 1–13
vegetation indices (VI) to monitor crop phenology since maturity time
may be predicted based on variation in VI values (Boyd et al., 2011;
Jeong et al., 2011). Meng et al. (2015) estimated soybean optimal
harvest time based on the temporal variation in crop biochemical
parameters—decrease in chlorophyll and water content—using a
combination of Normalized Difference Vegetation Index and Normal-
ized Difference Water Index values. However, few studies have reported
monitoring corn phenology. Vina et al. (2004) used visible atmo-
spherically resistant indices from hand-held spectroradiometer data to
evaluate the phenological development of corn.
In this study, chlorophyll content was used as an indicator of corn
maturity. Chlorophyll is a vital biochemistry parameter associated with
crop health status. Chlorophyll content affects the exchange of matter
and energy in plant photosynthesis (Gitelson et al., 2006). Moreover,
chlorophyll content varies across different crop stages thus it can be
used as an indicator of developmental stage (Filella and Penuelas,
1994). The purpose of this study was to develop a model to predict corn
OHD. The basic premise is similar to traditional methods that build on
the foundation of CKM. However, in this study we use remote sensing
imagery to estimate CKM. The study focused on determining canopy
chlorophyll content (CCC) from HJ-1 Charge Coupled Device (CCD)
satellite images using the PROSAIL physical model, which is based on
physical mechanisms of light transmission (discussed further in Section
2.5.1). From this, a model was built to relate the estimated CCC and
corresponding ground measurements of CKM. The model used the
linear decrease in CKM as harvesting is delayed to identify OHD, i.e.
when the CKM of a plot was below 30%.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Satellite remote sensing image acquisition
The HJ-1 satellite system launched on 6 September 2008 is part of
the Environment and Disaster Observing Satellite System of China. HJ-1
is a constellation of small satellites, made up of two optical (HJ-1A and
HJ-1B; Table 1) and one radar (HJ-1C) satellite (Wang, 2012). The
optical instruments of the HJ-1 satellites include CCD cameras, a Hyper
Spectral Imager (HIS, only onboard HJ-1A), and an Infrared Scanner
(IRS, only onboard HJ-1B). In this study, only the HJ-1 CCD spectral
bands were used. Two HJ-1 images (July 14 and September 7, 2014)
were used for CCC estimation and three images (September 30, October
4 and October 13, 2014) were used for prediction of corn OHD.
The ENVI 5.1 package was used for preprocessing the HJ-1 images.
Surface reflectance of the HJ-1 images were derived in several stages.
First, the images were radiometrically corrected using coefficients as-
sociated with the image file (gains and offsets) to transform the digital
numbers to at-sensor radiance. The ENVI/Fast Line-of-sight
Atmospheric Analysis of Hypercubes (FLAASH) module was then ap-
plied for atmosphere correction. FLAASH uses the MODTRAN4 radio-
metric transmission model code and is one of the most accurate at-
mospheric radiometric correction models available (Zhang et al., 2013).
Preprocessing also included geometric correction. The CCD imagery
was initially in the UTM coordinate system (spheroid WGS84, datum
WGS84, zone 52N). Geometric correction of the HJ-1 imagery was
performed using a RapidEye image as reference data. The high spatial
Table 1
HJ-1 CCD spectral bands.
Satellite Camera Band Waveband (μm) Spatial Revisit
platform resolution (m) period (days)
HJ-1A/B CCD 1 (Blue) 0.43–0.52 30 4
2 (Green) 0.52–0.60 30
3 (Red) 0.63–0.69 30
4 (NIR) 0.76–0.90 30
J. Xu, et al.
resolution (2 m) RapidEye image was acquired on a clear day on Sep-
tember 22, 2013 and was delivered with accurate geographical location
information. The resultant geolocation error in the HJ-1 image was
under 0.5 pixels. During the geocorrection process, the HJ-1 images
were reprojected from UTM to geographic coordinates system (spheroid
WGS84, datum WGS84) to match the field data.
2.2. Study area
The study area, Hongxing Farm (48°09′ N and 127°01′ E, 330 m
elevation), is a precision agriculture experiment station located in
northern Heilongjiang province in northeast China. The total area of the
farm is approximately 27,000 ha with an average plot area of 53.3 ha.
Monitoring using remote sensing images is appropriate for field scale
analysis. The study area lies within a mid-temperate zone characterized
by a mean annual rainfall of 555 mm and average annual cumulative
temperature (higher than 10 °C) of 2250 °C (Meng et al., 2015). The
study focused on spring corn, which is sown in early May and harvested
from the end of September into early October. In 2014, 51% of the area
in Hongxing Farm was planted with corn.
2.3. Ground data
The field experiments used to support this study were conducted
from September 30 to October 12, 2014 during the maturation period
of spring corn. Parameters measured in the field included leaf chlor-
ophyll content, LAI, corn plant density, CKM, one hundred-grain
weight, yield measurements, and the coordinates of each site.
Coordinate data were acquired using a Trimble GeoExplorer 3000 GPS
receiver.
In this study, nine spring corn sample plots were selected for esti-
mating CCC and exploring the relationship between corn CCC and CKM.
Thirteen different spring corn sample plots were selected for the vali-
dation of the CCC and CKM estimation model. Using the high-resolution
RapidEye imagery that was used for geometric correction, experimental
plots were located in relatively homogeneous areas (based on uni-
formity in the spectral response of the imagery). In addition, annual
yield statistics from 2010 to 2013 were used to evenly distribute the 22
spring corn sample plots (Fig. 1) across areas with high-, medium-, and
low-yield. Considering the spatial resolution (30 m) of the HJ-1A/B
CCD data used in this study, three quadrats, each covering 900 m2
Fig. 1. Study area (Hongxing Farm) with experimental sites shown over RapidEye imagery.
3
Field Crops Research 236 (2019) 1–13
(30 m × 30 m), were located for sampling in each plot along the row
direction. In each quadrat, three sample sites were laid out using a
diagonal sampling method (Fig. 2). In each quadrat, the average value
of the three sample sites was assumed to represent the ground observed
data corresponding to a single pixel in the image.
2.3.1. LAI measurements
Spring corn CCC was determined as a product of leaf chlorophyll
content and LAI. In this experiment, LAI was collected using
WinScanopy 2010a (Regent Instruments Inc., Quebec, Canada), which
is a canopy analysis system based on colored hemispherical images
(Pastorella and Paletto, 2013). The hemispherical images were col-
lected using a handheld fish-eye camera. Corn LAI values were then
retrieved and extracted using the LAI-2000 algorithm that has been
demonstrated to be more precise than other algorithms (Tong et al.,
2006). As mentioned above, nine plots were used for modeling the
relationship between CCC and CKM based on field data collected on
July 14 and September 7, 2014. With 2 image dates over 9 plots each
with 3 quadrats, we collected 54 spring corn LAI data training samples.
Historical LAI data (2010–2013) was also obtained from prior records
collected by Key Lab of Digital Earth, Institute of Remote Sensing and
Digital Earth, China. Although the data was incomplete, it served as
prior knowledge for the PROSAIL model inversion.
2.3.2. Canopy chlorophyll content measurements
We determined chlorophyll content using a handheld Field Scout
CM1000 Chlorophyll Meter (Spectrum technologies, Plain-field, 1L).
This device measures the leaf surface reflectance in the red and near-
infrared wavelengths to exploit the unique differential reflectance
properties of green leaves (Perry and Davenport, 2007). The chlor-
ophyll content was collected at the same time as the LAI observations
on July 14 and September 7, 2014. As with the LAI observations, there
were 54 chlorophyll data samples collected (9 plots × 3 quadrats × 2
dates). At each site, corn leaves located at the bottom, middle and top
were measured. With the device 30–183 cm from the leaf, lasers were
pointed at the leaf as the trigger was pressed. Each leaf was measured
6–9 times, and these values were averaged. CCC was then calculated for
each of the 54 quadrats as the product of LAI and the leaf chlorophyll
content.
The chlorophyll meter that was used yielded data only in terms of
relative chlorophyll content rather than the actual amount of
J. Xu, et al.
Fig. 2. Distribution of sample plots, quadrats, and sites using for sampling in the images.
chlorophyll per unit area of leaf tissue (Davenport et al., 2005; Wu
et al., 2008). The 95% ethanol extraction method (Lichtenthaler and
Buschmann, 2001) was used to determine the standard chlorophyll
content of corn leaf samples and establish a calibration between leaf
chlorophyll and the meter readings. The chemical method measured
leaf absorbance at 663 and 645 nm. The total chlorophyll concentration
was the sum of the concentrations of chlorophyll a and b, which were
calculated using the specific absorption coefficients (Arnon, 1949).
Results showed that there was a close relationship (R2 = 0.83) between
the index values measured by the CM1000 Chlorophyll Meter and the
actual chlorophyll content in mg/g measured using chemical methods.
The model used to inverse CCC requires the leaf chlorophyll content
unit in μg/cm2. Hence, the unit of mg/g needed to be converted to μg/
cm2. Based on the study of Ai et al. (2000), the chlorophyll in mg/g was
converted to a Soil-Plant Analyses Development (SPAD) value, which is
another relative chlorophyll value. In this study, the SPAD value was
not measured by any device and simply served as a convenient inter-
mediate variable for the conversion process. The procedure presented
by Arnon (1949) was used to convert the SPAD value to μg/cm2. Similar
to LAI data, historical chlorophyll data (2010–2013) were also obtained
for providing a priori knowledge for the PROSAIL model.
2.3.3. Corn plant density measurements
For each site, corn plants along several 1 m transects in the direction
of the ridge were counted and the values were averaged. Similar data in
the row direction was also collected and the number of the plants in the
1 m × 1 m area was used to define the corn plant density.
2.3.4. Corn kernel moisture measurements
Based on prior knowledge of the maturity time of corn in the study
area, CKM data of 9 plots was collected on September 30, October 3,
October 5, October 7, October 9, and October 11 for analyzing CKM
temporal variation trends and building the model for CKM estimation.
In addition, 13 additional plots were collected on September 30,
October 3, and October 11 for validating the model for CKM estimation
and OHD prediction. To reduce environmental effects and ensure con-
sistency, CKM for each plot was collected at 10:00 am. CKM was de-
termined using the LDS-1G Grain Moisture Meter (Shanghai Qingpu
Oasis Inspection Technologies Co., Ltd, China). This meter can quantify
moisture levels from 3–35% with an accuracy of 0.5%. Before using the
device, it was calibrated through the twice drying method at 70 °C and
4
Field Crops Research 236 (2019) 1–13
130 °C based on the standard criteria (National Grain and Material
Reserve Administration, 2006) for determining grain moisture content
and ensuring the reliability of the meter.
Kernels of two randomly selected ears of corn were used to fill up
the container of the LDS-1G Grain Moisture Meter and the moisture
readings were made. Three measurements were recorded, and an
average taken for each point. CKM data were collected on September
30, October 3, and October 11. With three quadrats in each plot, eighty-
one measurements were collected (9 plots × 3 quadrats × 3 dates).
However, because the purpose of this study was to predict the optimal
harvest date of the whole plot, the average of the three quadrats was
assigned to the plot. This meant that twenty-seven measurements (9
averaged plots × 3 dates) were used for establishing the relationship
between CCC and CKM, and twenty-six measurements (13 additional
plots × 2 dates (September 30 and October 03)) were used for vali-
dating the model. The CKM data of thirteen plots on October 11 was
used for validating the CKM prediction based on the CKM estimation on
September 30 and October 03. The available satellite images and ob-
served data are shown in Fig. 3.
2.3.5. One hundred-grain weight and yield
To analyze the effects of late harvesting, one hundred-grain weight
and yield for nine plots were also obtained. Three hundred kernels from
the two ears of corn used for determining CKM were randomly selected,
weighed and converted to standard CKM (14%) (Gu et al., 2017) to
compute one hundred-grain weight. The weight of one hundred corn
kernels and the corresponding CKM were then used to calculate the one
hundred-grain weight of corn. Plot yield was calculated by the grain
weight per plant with standard CKM and the plant density.
2.4. Overall technology roadmap
The overall technology roadmap used in this study is presented in
Fig. 4. In the first step, we retrieved CCC from the HJ-1 CCD images
(July 14 and September 7) by using the lookup table method based on
the PROSAIL model. PROSAIL is a radiative transfer model that is a
widely accepted for simulating canopy reflectance of different bio-
chemical components (Jacquemoud et al., 2009). After validation of the
model reliability, based on the CCC assessment results from the corn
maturing period and observation of experimental kernel moisture, the
relationship between the CCC and CKM was modeled. Thirteen plot
J. Xu, et al.
Fig. 3. Acquisition dates for available satellite images and corresponding field observations.
* The model is the relationship between CCC and CKM.
measurements acquired on September 30 and October 3 were used for
validating this model. The temporal variation rate analysis of CKM, one
hundred-grain weight, and yield from September 30 to October 11 in-
dicated some regularities and illustrated the late harvest effects on one
hundred-grain weight, and yield. CKM for September 30 and October 4
were calculated by using the model between CCC (derived from the HJ-
1 CCD images) and CKM. This enabled calculation of CKM temporal
variation rates from September 30 to October 4. Subsequently, ac-
cording to the temporal variation rate of CKM, the CKM and OHD of
thirteen plots from October 1 to October 11 could be predicted. The
CKM field observations on October 11 were used to validate the CKM
prediction.
2.5. Inversion of canopy chlorophyll content
2.5.1. PROSAIL model
Physical modeling based on stable physical mechanisms is con-
sidered a robust approach that does not easily change with temporal
and spatial variation (Jacquemoud et al., 2009). The radiative transfer
model is a popular physical model that has a clear physical meaning. In
this study, we selected the PROSAIL model which merges the PROSP-
ECT leaf optical properties model (Jacquemoud and Baret, 1990) and
the Scattering by arbitrarily inclined leaves (SAIL) canopy bidirectional
reflectance model (Verhoef, 1984) to estimate canopy chlorophyll
content. Due to its ease of use, general robustness, and consistent re-
sults, the PROSAIL model has become one of the most popular radiative
Fig. 4. Flow chart of this study showing key steps described in Sections 2.5 and 2.6.
5
Field Crops Research 236 (2019) 1–13
transfer tools (Jacquemoud et al., 2009).
The physiology and biochemistry parameters used as input for the
PROSAIL model are shown in Table 2 (Darvishzadeh et al., 2012;
Jacquemoud et al., 2009; Vohland et al., 2010). When applied directly,
these inputs to the PROSAIL model are used to derive spectral re-
flectance and transmittance values based on light transmission me-
chanisms. The inversion of the PROSAIL model uses spectral reflectance
(e.g., satellite images with different reflectance bands) to derive leaf
parameters. The PROSAIL model was implemented using the interface
description language (IDL).
2.5.2. Sensitivity study
Considering the complicated parameters of the PROSAIL model,
global sensitivity analysis based on canopy reflectance simulation was
performed to adjust the parameters and understand their impact on the
variation of the physical forward model (Xu and Meng, 2014). The
range of the PROSAIL model parameters tested is shown in Table 2. The
LAI and chlorophyll ranges were set according to statistics from field
data collected over 4 years (2010–2013). Other parameters were set
based on previous studies (Darvishzadeh et al., 2012; Duan et al., 2014;
Vohland et al., 2010). The random values of each parameter followed a
uniform distribution. The extended Fourier amplitude sensitivity test
(EFAST) was selected to generate a parameter sensitivity index. Using
Simlab software (SIMLAB, 2004; Tarantola, 2005), the implementation
process included identifying parameter setting, selecting a sample
probability distribution function, generating samples, running the
J. Xu, et al.
Table 2
Parameters used in simulating canopy reflectance with the PROSAIL model.
Model Parameters Description
PROSPECT Cab Chlorophyll a+b content (μg/cm )
Ns Leaf structure parameter
Cm Dry matter content (g/cm2)
Cw Equivalent water thickness (cm)
SAIL tts Solar zenith angle (°)
tto Viewing zenith angle (°)
Psi Relative azimuth angle (°)
LAI Leaf area index
ALA Average leaf angle (°)
Hspot Hot spot parameter
Psoil Soil reflectance assumed
Lambertian or not
skyl Ratio of diffuse to total incident radiation
model, performing Monte Carlo simulations, and calculating the results
of parameter uncertainty and sensitivity. The spectral response that was
more sensitive to parameter variation indicated which parameters
should be selected for model inversion. In this study, the first step was
to find spectral bands sensitive to the variation of chlorophyll content.
Then from the selected bands the global sensitivity analysis was used to
identify other parameters that impacted spectral response. These
parameters were used as model inputs while the other parameters were
set as constants to reduce model complexity and computation time.
2.5.3. Lookup table method
By running the PROSAIL forward model using the range of para-
meter values identified in the sensitivity analysis study, we generated
an assembly of hyperspectral data. A lookup table (LUT) was then es-
tablished through simulation of the HJ-1CCD data with the spectral
response function of the HJ-1 CCD sensor. Entries in the LUT that
showed the highest similarity with the measured spectrum were used to
calculate the solution of the inverse problem. The spectral similarity
between the measured multispectral data and the synthetic spectra in
the LUT was calculated according to the following equation:
n the band may be negatively impacted by scattering. Thus, only the
(Rmeas RLUT) 2
RMSE = i=1
n (1)
where Rmeas was the measured multispectral data and RLUT was the
corresponding simulated reflectance in the LUT.
2.6. OHD prediction based on estimation and prediction of CKM
Due to the limitation in applying the grain moisture meter across
large areas, CKM estimated from satellite images was used to determine
the nonlinear relationship between CCC and CKM. The Origin Software
was used to perform the regression analysis in this study. The first step
was to estimate the CCC of nine modeled plots for July 14 and
September 7 using the PROSAIL model. Thirteen additional plots were
used for validating the accuracy of the CCC estimation model. After
validating the CCC estimation model, CCC estimations from the HJ-
1CCD images for the nine test plots on September 30, October 4 and
October 13 were used to establishing the nonlinear relationship with
CKM. Unfortunately, corresponding ground data were not available for
all dates, therefore, ground data from the closest date to the remote
sensing images (September 30, October 3 and October 11 were selected
to estimate CKM). Data from thirteen plots, collected on September 30
and October 3, were used for testing the accuracy of the model. October
11 was used for validating the accuracy of the CKM prediction. The
CKM maps for September 30 and October 4 were generated using this
model.
To demonstrate the effect of harvest date on corn yield, one hun-
dred-grain weight, CKM, and the changes of yield, one hundred-grain
weight and CKM with temporal variation were analyzed. CCC was
6
Field Crops Research 236 (2019) 1–13
Range Probability distribution
2
20–70 Uniform
1–2
0.002–0.1
0.005–0.045
0–50 Uniform
0–50
0–180
0.5–7
10–80
0.01–1
0.01–0.3
10–80
retrieved from satellite images on September 30 and October 4 and
used to calculate CKM using the previously defined relationship. The
temporal variation rate of CKM from September 30 to October 4 was
calculated. CKM from October 1 to October 11 were predicted based on
the CKM on September 30 while CKM from October 5 to October 11
were also predicted based on the CKM on October 4. The purpose of this
duplication was to compare the accuracy of CKM estimation from dif-
ferent dates. When the value of CKM was less than 30%, the plots were
considered to have reached the OHD.
3. Results
3.1. Results of global sensitivity study
Fig. 5 shows the global sensitivity analysis results. The global sen-
sitivity indexes describe parameter sensitivity: higher values mean that
the model is more sensitive to the variation of a particular parameter.
The results indicated that the green and red bands were most sensitive
to the change in chlorophyll content. Although the blue band was also
sensitive to the change in chlorophyll content, there was concern that
green and red bands were used for the inversion of the leaf chlorophyll
content. Cm, Ns, Hspot, and LAI—which were also sensitive to green
and red reflectance—were chosen as the final set of parameters.
Therefore, the sensitivity analysis reduced the number of parameters
from twelve to five, which subsequently reduced computation time.
3.2. Canopy chlorophyll content estimation
Reflectance from HJ-1 CCD images of July 14 and September 7,
2014 (Fig. 6) were used for chlorophyll content inversion, based on a
LUT with size 340957. Groups of data from 27 sites across the nine
modeled plots (9 plots × 3 sites) for each date were used to retrieve
CCC using the PROSAIL model. The results for the validation of the
modeled CCC (Fig. 7) suggested that the measured and estimated
chlorophyll content were correlated based on the significance test. The
coefficient of determination (R2) was 0.52, and root-mean-square error
(RMSE) is 19.56 μg/cm2. The precision of these results suggested that
the remote sensing method could meet the demands of precision agri-
culture established in previous studies (Gitelson et al., 2005; Wu et al.,
2008).
3.3. One hundred-grain weight and yield variation
To verify whether the delay in harvest after corn reaches maturity
influences the final yield, the temporal variation of one hundred-grain
weight and yield was analyzed (Figs. 8–11). Some studies have in-
dicated that even though summer corn generally stops growing in late
September, grain-filling continues (Sun et al., 2007). Our analysis
J. Xu, et al.
Fig. 5. Global sensitivity index analysis for parameters in PROSAIL model; see methods Section 2.5.2 for a description of the x-axis parameters.
showed that one hundred-grain weight and the yield both had a close
relationship with the delay in harvesting, with R2 equal to 0.998 and
0.997 respectively, which indicated that both one hundred-grain weight
and yield were significantly correlated with the delayed days after corn
reaches maturity. Both one hundred-grain weight and the yield dis-
played a generally increasing trend over time.
After October 9, the variation in the curves gradually flattened.
Therefore, a polynomial function was selected to fit the variation trend
of one hundred-grain weight and yield with delay days in harvesting.
The flattening trend also indicated that later harvest could improve
corn yield, but an excessive delay could lead to the negative effects on
the grain quality that would influence the yield. Hence, accurately
predicting corn OHD could help improve yield and reduce unnecessary
yield loss.
3.4. Temporal variation in CKM
Similar to the analysis of one hundred-grain weight and yield var-
iation, the temporal variation of CKM was also explored. Leaf and stem
water content decrease as corn reaches maturity. Concurrently, the
color of the leaves gradually turns to yellow, with a decrease in leaf
chlorophyll content and CKM. Further analysis was conducted to de-
monstrate the variation of CKM over time (Figs. 12–13). CKM data were
collected on September 30, October 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11 for exploring the
temporal variation of CKM. Fig. 12 shows that CKM displayed a general
declining trend over this time period. As mentioned in the introduction,
Fig. 6. Color infrared HJ-1CCD images used for estimating canopy chlorophyll content on (a) July 14, 2014 and (b) Sept 7, 2014.
7
Field Crops Research 236 (2019) 1–13
corn is thought to arrive at the OHD when the CKM is less than 30%.
This stage relates to both maximum yield and high quality of grain. Our
results showed that not all the experimental plots arrived at the OHD on
September 30; 60% (Plots 3, 4, 6, 7, 9) of the plots could be harvested
on October 9, and 66.67% (Plots 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9) on October 11. The
yield variation in Fig. 9 also demonstrated the feasibility if a 30% CKM
is used to define harvest time. Comparing Fig. 9 with Fig. 12, on Oc-
tober 9, the CKM of plots 1, 2, 5 and 8 were above 30%, while the CKM
of other plots were less than 30%. Correspondingly, the yield of plots 1,
2, 5 and 8 continued to increase while the yield of the other plots had
leveled off. Therefore, this supports the premise that a CKM of 30% is
an effective criterion to determine PM and OHD.
We also examined the relationship between the delay in harvesting
and the CKM average value of the nine plots. These results showed a
linear decrease and a significant linear correlation (R2 = 0.92) with the
delay in harvesting. The linear relationship indicated that if CKM of the
earlier period were obtained, the CKM could be predicted according to
the delay days and the decreasing rate (0.52%). The studies of Huang
et al. (2012) and Wang et al. (2001) also have similar decreasing rate
from 0.25% and 0.8% in terms of different corn cultivar. This conclu-
sion provided the primary method for predicting OHD based on the
prediction of CKM. However, this relationship also had some limita-
tions. At the beginning period (September 30 to October 4), the de-
crease rate was lower than in the later period. Therefore, the quadratic
function would derive a more significant relationship between delay in
harvesting and CKM. However, fitting a quadratic curve would require
J. Xu, et al. Field Crops Research 236 (2019) 1–13

Fig. 7. Relationship between measured and estimated CCC using methods described in Section 2.5.

Fig. 8. Variation in one hundred-grain weight for different harvest dates. Fig. 10. Relationship between delay in harvesting and one hundred-grain
weight.

Fig. 9. Variation in the yield for different harvest dates.

Fig. 11. Relationship between delay in harvesting and yield.

8
J. Xu, et al.
Fig. 12. Variation in CKM for different harvest dates.
Fig. 13. Relationship between delay in harvesting and CKM.
collection of satellite images on at least three different dates across the
earlier period. In this study, only two remote sensing im-
ages—September 30 and October 4—were acquired, which meant that
the linear function was more appropriate.
3.5. CKM estimation
We used the estimated CCC on September 30, October 4 and
October 13 and measured CKM on September 30, October 3, and
October 11 for nine plots to perform a nonlinear regression analysis.
The results generated a nonlinear exponential function estimation
model, which best fit the initial linear trend and the asymptotic process
observed at higher CCC values. Six iterations were performed during
the establishment of the model until the Chi-Square was reduced, and
the tolerance value reached 1E-9. The scatter plot displayed in Fig. 14
illustrates the fit of the model with parameter statistics shown in
Table 3. The R2 equal to 0.92 indicates a significant correlation between
estimated CCC and measured CKM. The fitting equation is presented
below.
CKM (%) = 34.43 383.21 × exp ( 0.064 CCC)
The relationship described by this equation shows that when the
corn first enters the maturity stage, the CKM did not vary a lot as the
CCC decreased. However, when the corn entered the harvest period,
both CKM decreased more significantly.
Observations from an additional thirteen plots on September 30 and
Field Crops Research 236 (2019) 1–13
Fig. 14. Model for estimation of CKM using estimated CCC.
October 3 were used to validate the reliability of the CKM estimation
model. The relationship between measured and estimated CKM is
shown in Fig. 15. The coefficient of determination between the mea-
sured CKM and the estimated CKM (R2) was 0.64 and the RMSE was
0.95%.
CKM maps for the study area were generated by applying the re-
gression model to remote sensing images masked to show only corn
plantations from September 30 and October 4. The CKM maps for the
two dates (Fig. 16) showed that there were declines in CKM, with many
plots reaching maturity between September 30 and October 4.
3.6. Optimal harvest date prediction
Based on the CKM calculation from September 30 and October 4, we
calculated the change in average CKM over time (Table 4). Assuming a
constant variation rate, CKM for October 1 to October 11 was then
calculated based on the September 30 CKM value. Similarly, the CKM
for October 5 to October 11 was calculated based on the October 4 CKM
value. Observations of CKM on October 11 were used for CKM valida-
tion; absolute errors between the predicted and measured CKM on
October 11 using both starting dates are also shown in Table 4. The
average absolute errors indicate that CKM prediction based on Sep-
tember 30 was more accurate than CKM predicted from the October 4
data, which influences the prediction of OHD. However, the predicted
OHD for plot 3 based on the September 30 CKM was October 3, while
October 6 was more accurately predicted based on the October 4 CKM.
This discrepancy may be caused by the temperature, weather or other
external factors. Therefore, it is better to choose a basic CKM level
closer to the beginning of corn maturity period. Among the validation
plots, 46.2% had an absolute error less than 1%, 30.8% had an absolute
error of 1–2%, and the remaining 23.0% had an absolute error of
2–3.26%. This suggests that the method is accurate enough for agri-
cultural applications. The predicted OHD of each validation plot is also
presented in Table 4. OHD of almost all plots was around October 3 to
10, which was reasonably consistent with empirical agronomical
methods.
4. Discussion
(2)
This study presented a new method for predicting the optimal
harvest time for large-area corn using remote sensing technology. This
section discusses the OHD prediction method and the advantages,
limitations, and uncertainties of the method, as well as plans for future
work.
9
J. Xu, et al. Field Crops Research 236 (2019) 1–13

Table 3
Statistics for regression model parameters.
Degree of freedom Sum of squares Mean square F value (Prob > F)

Regression 3 28033.017 9344.34 11222.54 0

Residual 24 19.98 0.83264
Uncorrected total 27 28053
Corrected total 26 238.35

Fig. 15. Relationship between measured CKM and estimated CKM using the
model described in Section 2.6.
4.1. The novel OHD prediction method and advantages
Conventional methods for predicting corn OHD involve measure-
ment of CKM (Tolera et al., 1998), or visual interpretation of kernel
milk line (Afuakwa and Crookston, 1984), and kernel black layer for-
mation (Baker, 1971; Daynard and Duncan, 1969). However, such
methods are not practical for crops that cover large areas. In this study,
satellite images were used to estimate CCC and then these estimates
were used to establish a relationship with CKM, which can be used to
predict OHD. Many studies have demonstrated the efficiency and ac-
curacy of determining corn CCC using remote sensing technology
(Daughtry et al., 2000; Haboudane et al., 2008; Jacquemoud et al.,
2009; Wu et al., 2008; Xu and Meng, 2014) as well as the stability of the
PROSAIL model applied in this study (Jacquemoud et al., 2009). Corn
CCC was calculated as the product of leaf chlorophyll content and LAI,
which are closely related to green leaf status. At the beginning of the
corn maturity period, the CCC decreases, but the ears of corn are cov-
ered by the husk hence, CKM remains relatively static. However, as the
corn CCC decreases further, the CKM also starts to decrease. When the
corn CCC is above 85 μg/cm2, the CKM has little variation, but CKM
drops when CCC is below 85 μg/cm2.
Our results indicated that CKM decreases about 0.54% per day from
September 30 to October 4, which is similar to the conclusions pre-
sented in other research (Lauer, 1998). The plot was considered to have
reached OHD when the CKM dropped to 30%. The selection of 30% was
in part based on physiological maturity, which indicates the maximum
grain dry weight accumulation (as explained in Section 3.4). The
threshold was also based on prior research (Kaaya et al., 2005; Lauer,
1999) that proposed that delaying harvest until the CKM was below
30% would increase the yield and reduce drying costs. However, the
challenge is that variation in weather, temperature, humidity and other
environmental factors across different regions impacts harvest date
(Nielsen, 2011). Hongxing farm, which is in northern Heilongjiang
province in northeastern China, has an average October temperature of
about 10 °C. If corn is not harvested in a timely manner, there is risk of
frost damage. Therefore, 30% was selected as the OHD indicator for this
study; the results of Sections 3.3 and 3.4 which showed the increasing
yield trend and the decreasing CKM trend as the delay in harvesting,
demonstrated the appropriateness of a 30% CKM. This paper also
compared CKM prediction based on different dates (September 30 and
October 4). Results showed that the date closer to the beginning of corn
maturity period (September 30) provided a more accurate prediction.
However, more time-series images needed to be tested to confirm this.
There were some advantages of using this novel prediction method.
First, HJ-CCD remote sensing images were available with about a one-
day delay after acquisition. Using remote sensing technology enables
near real-time corn information and provides objective analysis of corn
status even when plots are planted on different dates and impacted by
many factors during the growing season. This study used only two time-
series satellite images close to harvest date to predict the OHD. Second,
as mentioned above, 30% CKM was a suitable OHD indicator for
Hongxing farm but the approach applied is not limited to this site. If
other farms are known to have different level demand, this method can

Fig. 16. Map of estimated CKM of images acquired on (a) Sep 30, 2014 and (b) Oct 4, 2014 using the model described in Section 3.5.

10
 Table 4
CKM and OHD prediction of each validation plot based on a temporal variation rate calculated from the average change in estimated CKM between Sep 30 and Oct 4 (32.80–30.64)/4.
J. Xu, et al.

Validation plot Estimated CKM (%) Predicted CKM (%) Absolute error of Oct 11(%) Predicted OHD

Sep 30 Oct 4 Start Oct 1 Oct 2 Oct 3 Oct 4 Oct 5 Oct 6 Oct 7 Oct 8 Oct 9 Oct 10 Oct 11

1 32.57 30.92 Sep30 32.03 31.49 30.95 30.41 29.87 29.33 28.79 28.25 27.71 27.17 26.63 1.33 10-5
Oct 4 – – – – 30.38 29.84 29.30 28.76 28.22 27.68 27.14 1.84 10-6
2 33.95 30.79 Sep30 33.41 32.87 32.33 31.79 31.25 30.71 30.17 29.63 29.09 28.55 28.01 3.21 10-8
Oct 4 – – – – 30.25 29.71 29.17 28.63 28.09 27.55 27.01 2.21 10-6
3 31.54 30.65 Sep30 31.00 30.46 29.92 29.38 28.84 28.30 27.76 27.22 26.68 26.14 25.60 1.60 10-3
Oct 4 – – – – 30.11 29.57 29.03 28.49 27.95 27.41 26.87 0.33 10-6
4 31.67 28.13 Sep30 31.13 30.59 30.05 29.51 28.97 28.43 27.89 27.35 26.81 26.27 25.73 0.03 10-4
Oct 4 – – – – 27.59 27.05 26.51 25.97 25.43 24.89 24.35 1.35 10-4
5 33.36 30.22 Sep30 32.82 32.28 31.74 31.20 30.66 30.12 29.58 29.04 28.50 27.96 27.42 0.78 10-7
Oct 4 – – – – 29.68 29.14 28.60 28.06 27.52 26.98 26.44 1.76 10-5
6 33.52 33.10 Sep30 32.98 32.44 31.90 31.36 30.82 30.28 29.74 29.20 28.66 28.12 27.58 1.62 10-7
Oct 4 – – – – 32.56 32.02 31.48 30.94 30.40 29.86 29.32 0.12 10-10
7 32.63 30.76 Sep30 32.09 31.55 31.01 30.47 29.93 29.39 28.85 28.31 27.77 27.23 26.69 2.09 10-5
Oct 4 – – – – 30.22 29.68 29.14 28.60 28.06 27.52 26.98 2.38 10-6
8 33.74 32.08 Sep30 33.20 32.66 32.12 31.58 31.04 30.50 29.96 29.42 28.88 28.34 27.80 0.30 10-7
Oct 4 – – – – 31.54 31.00 30.46 29.92 29.38 28.84 28.30 0.20 10-8
9 33.56 32.15 Sep30 33.02 32.48 31.94 31.40 30.86 30.32 29.78 29.24 28.70 28.16 27.62 0.68 10-7
Oct 4 – – – – 31.61 31.07 30.53 29.99 29.45 28.91 28.37 0.07 10-8
10 32.80 30.08 Sep30 32.26 31.72 31.18 30.64 30.10 29.56 29.02 28.48 27.94 27.40 26.86 3.26 10-6
Oct 4 – – – – 29.54 29.00 28.46 27.92 27.38 26.84 26.30 2.70 10-5
11 31.71 27.96 Sep30 31.17 30.63 30.09 29.55 29.01 28.47 27.93 27.39 26.85 26.31 25.77 0.67 10-4
Oct 4 – – – – 27.42 26.88 26.34 25.80 25.26 24.72 24.18 0.92 10-3
12 32.46 29.85 Sep30 31.92 31.38 30.84 30.30 29.76 29.22 28.68 28.14 27.60 27.06 26.52 0.12 10-4

11
Oct 4 – – – – 29.31 28.77 28.23 27.69 27.15 26.61 26.07 0.33 10-4
13 32.91 31.61 Sep30 32.37 31.83 31.29 30.75 30.21 29.67 29.13 28.59 28.05 27.51 26.97 1.37 10-6
Oct 4 – – – – 31.07 30.53 29.99 29.45 28.91 28.37 27.83 2.23 10-7
Average 32.80 30.64 Sep30 – 1.26 –
Oct 4 – 1.31 –

*Bold font denotes the CKM corresponding to the OHD for each plot based on the Sep 30 and Oct 4 start date.
Field Crops Research 236 (2019) 1–13
J. Xu, et al.
also be adapted to predict the OHD.
4.2. Limitation and uncertainties
Although the efficiency of this study has been demonstrated, this
approach also has limitations and uncertainties. The first limitation is
the satellite images used in this study. The spatial, spectral and tem-
poral resolution limited the model building of corn harvest date pre-
diction. Especially, high spectral and temporal resolution could facil-
itate using a non-linear model between delay in harvesting and CKM
and enhance the model for estimating CCC and CKM. The second lim-
itation is that although it is feasible to establish a relationship between
CCC and CKM in order to estimate CKM, the specific model was de-
veloped for spring corn in northeast China. The model is not applicable
to other regular crops, such as soybean, wheat, or cotton because dif-
ferent crops have different maturity characteristics. The third limitation
is uncertainty associated with the stability of the model. If the cultivar
or environment conditions change, the model will need to be recali-
brated. This model would also need to be validated in advance before
using it in other experimental areas. Therefore, although the model
worked well in this study, more observations and experiments are
needed to enhance the robustness of the model. Another limitation was
attaining concurrent ground data and remote sensing observations. As
stated previously, the CKM ground data were collected on September
30, October 03, and October 11, but the remote sensing data for esti-
mating CCC were from September 30, October 04 and October 13.
Obtaining more time-series remote sensing data would likely improve
the model prediction.
There were also some uncertainties in this study. The foundation of
this study required estimation of CCC. However, the unit of ground
measurements for CCC were converted from mg/g to μg/cm2 through a
multi-step process and this conversion process likely led to some error.
While the change from mg to μg is a simple unit conversion and doesn’t
have error associated with it, the g to cm2 conversion was the problem
since it changed the dimensionality from the volume to area of the
observation. In this study, the use of an intermediate variable, the SPAD
value, for converting units also added the potential for error. Therefore,
the CCC estimation accuracy may be improved if the unit conversion
process could be avoided entirely, or the intermediate step was re-
moved. Additional uncertainty comes from the use of the PROSAIL
model for retrieving CCC. This model has many input parameters that
both increase complexity and lower computational efficiency. However,
a more significant problem is that multiple combinations of the dif-
ferent input parameters can generate the same result, which is called
the ill-posed problem (Jacquemoud et al., 2009). Thus, future studies
should focus on the physical mechanisms of the PROSAIL model and
establish a more comprehensive database to use as prior knowledge.
Another area of uncertainty was in error propagation through the
multiple steps of the model. The estimated CCC is used to establish a
relationship with CKM, which in turn is used to predict OHD. Through
this process, the prediction accuracies of OHD are highly reliant on the
accuracy of the estimated CKM, which is dependent on the inversed
CCC. The uncertainties and errors propagating from CCC to CKM to
OHD increase the errors in the final OHD estimate. There is also un-
certainty associated with the remote sensing images, such as the in-
fluence of weather on data availability and quality.
4.3. Future work
4.3.1. New remote sensing application
Improved results may be achieved by obtaining higher spatial,
spectral, and temporal resolution images, such as the Chinese GF-1
satellite (16 m) launched on April 26, 2013, and GF-2 satellite (4 m)
launched on August 19, 2014. The GF-1 and GF-2 sensors observe solar
radiation reflected by the Earth in four spectral channels distributed in
the visible and NIR spectral domain ranging from 450 to 890 nm (Jia
12
Field Crops Research 236 (2019) 1–13
et al., 2016). Exploring other sensors, such as Sentinel-2 developed by
the European Space Agency (ESA), may also increase estimation accu-
racy. Sentinel-2 has 10 m spatial resolution and 12 bands including
bands across the red edge region and shortwave infrared (SWIR) bands
that are valuable for vegetation studies. The red edge band is likely to
be highly correlated with crop chlorophyll content, while the SWIR
bands may relate to moisture content in canopies directly, thus redu-
cing steps for chlorophyll estimation. With these new remote sensing
data, the next step is to explore whether it is possible to establish a
simple and direct relationship between remote sensing data and CKM to
reduce error propagation.
4.3.2. Universal model building
One of the weaknesses of the current CKM estimation model are
within the observations needed to build and validate the model. When
corn reaches physiological maturity, CKM decreases rapidly as the CCC
decreases and leaves turn yellow. As shown in our results, there appears
to be a threshold reached, but defining that threshold is challenging and
it is unclear if it may be impacted by variation in cultivars or field
conditions. Adding additional data to cover the gap from 75–85 μg/cm2
of CCC is expected to provide more information about the relationship
between CCC and CKM. A goal for future work is to explore the po-
tential to build a simple universal model that could be used to estimate
CKM for other areas by obtaining ground data for different locations
and cultivars. Also, given that weather conditions such as temperature,
rain, and snow can influence the harvest date, we need to explore in-
tegration of meteorological data into the model. Some biophysical crop
growth simulation models, such as Cropping Systems Simulation Model
(CropSyst) (Stöckle et al., 2003), Decision Support System for Agro-
technology Transfer Model (DSSAT) (Jones et al., 1998), The Agri-
cultural Production Systems sIMulator (APSIM) (McCown et al., 1996),
are able to integrate soil condition, weather, meteorological and man-
agement control information into crop growth processes. In future
study, it may be possible to combine the crop growth simulation model
with remote sensing and PROSAIL approaches to provide a more ac-
curate harvest date. With appropriate calibration, it is expected that
this remote sensing-based approach could be used for predicting har-
vest date and reducing yield loss for other crops, like soybean, wheat,
and cotton.
5. Conclusion
The new method proposed in this study enabled us to successfully
and accurately estimate CKM using a non-linear model (R2 = 0.92) and
predict CKM (R2 = 0.64) and corn OHD. This study provides new
avenues for predicting crop OHD using remote sensing multispectral
imagery. At least two images close to the harvest date are needed, and
the closer the images are to the beginning of corn maturity period, the
more accurate the prediction will be. It is anticipated that additional
time-series images and more observed data will lead to a more accurate
model for corn OHD prediction. The corn OHD prediction helps farm
managers to prepare for harvest in advance and thereby maximize
yield. This method also reduced the need for field data collection,
which is especially important for large-area crops. While the specific
model developed only applies to corn at Hongxing farm, with local
calibration, models could be developed for other farms. In addition, the
method is likely to have applicability to other crops such as soybean
that also have yield that is influenced by the harvest date.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the GF6 Project under Grant 30-
Y20A03-9003-17/18 and Grant 09-Y20A05-9001-17/18, the National
Natural Science Foundation of China (41871261, 41171331), the open
fund of the Key Laboratory of Oasis Eco-agriculture, Xinjiang
Production and Construction Group (201701). We thank the China
J. Xu, et al.
Centre for Resources Satellite Data and Application (CRESDA) for
providing the HJ-1 data and Hongxing farm for assisting us in the ac-
quisition of the validation data as well as the experimental field data
and providing the laboratory for field campaigns.
References
Abendroth, L., Elmore, R., Hartzler, R.G., McGrath, C., Mueller, D.S., Munkvold, G.P.,
Pope, R., Rice, M.E., Robertson, A.E., Sawyer, J.E., 2009. Corn Field Guide.
Afuakwa, J.J., Crookston, R.K., 1984. Using the kernel milk line to visually monitor grain
maturity in maize. Crop Sci. 24, 687–691.
Ai, T., Li, F., Zhou, Z., Zhang, M., Wu, H., 2000. Relationship between chlorophyll meter
readings (SPAD readings) and chlorophyll content of crop leaves. J. Hubei Agric. Coll.
20, 6–8.
Arnon, D.I., 1949. Copper enzymes in isolated chloroplasts. Polyphenoloxidase in beta
vulgaris. Plant Physiol. 24, 1.
Atzberger, C., 2013. Advances in remote sensing of agriculture: context description, ex-
isting operational monitoring systems and major information needs. Remote Sens. 5,
949–981.
Baker, R., 1971. Black layer development – one way to tell when your corn is mature.
Crops Soils.
Boyd, D.S., Almond, S., Dash, J., Curran, P.J., Hill, R.A., 2011. Phenology of vegetation in
Southern England from Envisat MERIS terrestrial chlorophyll index (MTCI) data. Int.
J. Remote Sens. 32, 8421–8447.
Ceccato, P., Flasse, S., Tarantola, S., Jacquemoud, S., Grégoire, J.-M., 2001. Detecting
vegetation leaf water content using reflectance in the optical domain. Remote Sens.
Environ. 77, 22–33.
Clevers, J.G.P.W., Kooistra, L., Schaepman, M.E., 2010. Estimating canopy water content
using hyperspectral remote sensing data. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 12, 119–125.
Croft, H., Chen, J., Zhang, Y., Simic, A., 2013. Modelling leaf chlorophyll content in
broadleaf and needle leaf canopies from ground, CASI, Landsat TM 5 and MERIS
reflectance data. Remote Sens. Environ. 133, 128–140.
Darvishzadeh, R., Matkan, A.A., Ahangar, A.D., 2012. Inversion of a radiative transfer
model for estimation of rice canopy chlorophyll content using a lookup-table ap-
proach. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 5, 1222–1230.
Daughtry, C., Walthall, C., Kim, M., De Colstoun, E.B., McMurtrey Iii, J., 2000. Estimating
corn leaf chlorophyll concentration from leaf and canopy reflectance. Remote Sens.
Environ. 74, 229–239.
Davenport, J., Stevens, R., Perry, E., Lang, N., 2005. Leaf spectral reflectance for non-
destructive measurement of plant nutrient status. Horttechnology 15, 31–35.
Daynard, T., Duncan, W.G., 1969. The black layer and grain maturity in corn 1. Crop Sci.
9, 473–476.
Duan, S., Li, Z., Wu, H., Tang, B., Ma, L., Zhao, E., Li, C., 2014. Inversion of the PROSAIL
model to estimate leaf area index of maize, potato, and sunflower fields from un-
manned aerial vehicle hyperspectral data. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 26, 12–20.
Filella, I., Penuelas, J., 1994. The red edge position and shape as indicators of plant
chlorophyll content, biomass and hydric status. Int. J. Remote Sens. 15, 1459–1470.
Gilmore, E., Rogers, J., 1958. Heat units as a method of measuring maturity in corn.
Agron. J. 50, 611–615.
Gitelson, A.A., Vina, A., Ciganda, V., Rundquist, D.C., Arkebauer, T.J., 2005. Remote
estimation of canopy chlorophyll content in crops. Geophys. Res. Lett. 32.
Gitelson, A.A., Viña, A., Verma, S.B., Rundquist, D.C., Arkebauer, T.J., Keydan, G.,
Leavitt, B., Ciganda, V., Burba, G.G., Suyker, A.E., 2006. Relationship between gross
primary production and chlorophyll content in crops: Implications for the synoptic
monitoring of vegetation productivity. J. Geophys. Res.: Atmos. 111.
Gu, R., Li, L., Liang, X., Wang, Y., Fan, T., Wang, Y., Wang, J., 2017. The ideal harvest
time for seeds of hybrid maize (Zea mays L.) XY335 and ZD958 produced in multiple
environments. Sci. Rep. 7, 17537.
Haboudane, D., Tremblay, N., Miller, J.R., Vigneault, P., 2008. Remote estimation of crop
chlorophyll content using spectral indices derived from hyperspectral data. IEEE
Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 46, 423–437.
Hanway, J.J., 1963. Growth stages of corn (Zea mays, L.). Agron. J. 55, 487–492.
Hanway, J.J., 1986. How a corn plant develops. Special Report. Iowa State University.
Howell, T.A., Tolk, J.A., Schneider, A.D., Evett, S.R., 1998. Evapotranspiration, yield, and
water use efficiency of corn hybrids differing in maturity. Agron. J. 90, 3–9.
Huang, H., Faulkner, D.B., Berger, L.L., Eckhoff, S.R., 2012. Harvest date influence on dry
matter yield and moisture of corn and stover. Trans. ASABE 55, 593–598.
Jacquemoud, S., Baret, F., 1990. PROSPECT: a model of leaf optical properties spectra.
Remote Sens. Environ. 34, 75–91.
Jacquemoud, S., Verhoef, W., Baret, F., Bacour, C., Zarco-Tejada, P.J., Asner, G.P.,
François, C., Ustin, S.L., 2009. PROSPECT+SAIL models: a review of use for vege-
tation characterization. Remote Sens. Environ. 113, S56–S66.
Jeong, S.J., Ho, C.H., Gim, H.J., Brown, M.E., 2011. Phenology shifts at start vs. end of
growing season in temperate vegetation over the Northern Hemisphere for the period
1982–2008. Global Change Biol. 17, 2385–2399.
Jia, K., Liang, S., Gu, X., Baret, F., Wei, X., Wang, X., Yao, Y., Yang, L., Li, Y., 2016.
Fractional vegetation cover estimation algorithm for Chinese GF-1 wide field view
data. Remote Sens. Environ. 177, 184–191.
Jones, J., Tsuji, G., Hoogenboom, G., Hunt, L., Thornton, P., Wilkens, P., Imamura, D.,
13
Field Crops Research 236 (2019) 1–13
Bowen, W., Singh, U., 1998. Decision support system for agrotechnology transfer:
DSSAT v3. Understanding Options for Agricultural Production. Springer, pp.
157–177.
Kaaya, A.N., Warren, H.L., Kyamanywa, S., Kyamuhangire, W., 2005. The effect of de-
layed harvest on moisture content, insect damage, moulds and aflatoxin con-
tamination of maize in Mayuge district of Uganda. J. Sci. Food Agric. 85, 2595–2599.
Lauer, J., 1998. Corn kernel milk stage and silage harvest moisture. In: Proc. 1998 Forage
Symposium. Madison.
Lauer, J., 1999. Corn hybrid and planting date influence rate of kernel drydown. Field
Crops 28, 47–52.
Lichtenthaler, H.K., Buschmann, C., 2001. Chlorophylls and carotenoids: measurement
and characterization by UV-VIS spectroscopy. Curr. Protoc. Food Anal. Chem.
McCown, R.L., Hammer, G.L., Hargreaves, J.N.G., Holzworth, D.P., Freebairn, D.M.,
1996. APSIM: a novel software system for model development, model testing and
simulation in agricultural systems research. Agric. Syst. 50, 255–271.
Meng, J., Xu, J., You, X., 2015. Optimizing soybean harvest date using HJ-1 satellite
imagery. Precis. Agric. 1–16.
Mulla, D.J., 2013. Twenty five years of remote sensing in precision agriculture: key ad-
vances and remaining knowledge gaps. Biosyst. Eng. 114, 358–371.
National Grain and Material Reserve Administration, 2006. Grain and oilseed –
Determination of moisture content – Twice drying method. GB/T 20264-2006. The
General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine &The
Standardization Administration of the People's Republic of China, Beijing, China.
Nielsen, R., 2011. Field Drydown of Mature Corn Grain. Purdue University, West
Lafayette, IN.
Pastorella, F., Paletto, A., 2013. A comparative analysis of image processing softwares to
indirect estimation of leaf area index in forest ecosystems. Folia Oecol. 40, 225.
Perry, E.M., Davenport, J.R., 2007. Spectral and spatial differences in response of vege-
tation indices to nitrogen treatments on apple. Comput. Electron. Agric. 59, 56–65.
Pordesimo, L., Sokhansanj, S., Edens, W., 2004. Moisture and yield of corn stover frac-
tions before and after grain maturity. Trans. ASAE 47, 1597.
Rivera, J.P., Verrelst, J., Leonenko, G., Moreno, J., 2013. Multiple cost functions and
regularization options for improved retrieval of leaf chlorophyll content and LAI
through inversion of the PROSAIL model. Remote Sens. 5, 3280–3304.
Schmidt, J., Hallauer, A.R., 1966. Estimating harvest date of corn in the field 1. Crop Sci.
6, 227–231.
SIMLAB, V., 2004. 2.2 simulation environment for uncertainty and sensitivity analysis.
Developed by the Joint Research Center of the European Commission.
Stöckle, C.O., Donatelli, M., Nelson, R., 2003. CropSyst, a cropping systems simulation
model. Eur. J. Agron. 18, 289–307.
Sun, H., Zhang, X., Chen, S., Pei, D., Liu, C., 2007. Effects of harvest and sowing time on
the performance of the rotation of winter wheat–summer maize in the North China
Plain. Ind. Crops Prod. 25, 239–247.
Tarantola, S., 2005. SimLab 2. 2 Reference Manual. Institute for Systems, Informatics and
Safety, European Commission, Joint Research Center, Ispra, Italy.
Tolera, A., Sundstøl, F., Said, A.N., 1998. The effect of stage of maturity on yield and
quality of maize grain and stover. Animal Feed Sci. Technol. 75, 157–168.
Tong, W., Shaoxiang, N., Yunmei, L., Jian, C., 2006. A comparison on the algorithms for
retrieval of LAI based on gap fraction of vegetation canopy. J. Nanjing Normal Univ.
(Nat. Sci.) 1, 025.
USDA, N., 2018. World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates. . http://usda.
mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/waobr/wasde-bb.
Verhoef, W., 1984. Light scattering by leaf layers with application to canopy reflectance
modeling: the SAIL model. Remote Sens. Environ. 16, 125–141.
Vina, A., Gitelson, A.A., Rundquist, D.C., Keydan, G., Leavitt, B., Schepers, J., 2004.
Monitoring maize (Zea mays L.) phenology with remote sensing. Agron. J. 96,
1139–1147.
Vohland, M., Mader, S., Dorigo, W., 2010. Applying different inversion techniques to
retrieve stand variables of summer barley with PROSPECT+ SAIL. Int. J. Appl. Earth
Obs. Geoinf. 12, 71–80.
Wang, Q., 2012. Technical system design and construction of China's HJ-1 satellites. Int.
J. Digit. Earth 5, 202–216.
Wang, Z., Zhang, Z., Chang, H., Jin, Y., Wang, L., 2001. Analysis of physiological mature
stage and kernel naturally dry-down rate in 38 corn inbred lines in Heilongjiang.
Maize Sci. 2.
Wu, C., Chen, J.M., Desai, A.R., Hollinger, D.Y., Arain, M.A., Margolis, H.A., Gough, C.M.,
Staebler, R.M., 2012. Remote sensing of canopy light use efficiency in temperate and
boreal forests of North America using MODIS imagery. Remote Sens. Environ. 118,
60–72.
Wu, C., Niu, Z., Tang, Q., Huang, W., 2008. Estimating chlorophyll content from hy-
perspectral vegetation indices: Modeling and validation. Agric. For. Meteorol. 148,
1230–1241.
Wu, C., Niu, Z., Wang, J., Gao, S., Huang, W., 2010. Predicting leaf area index in wheat
using angular vegetation indices derived from in situ canopy measurements. Can. J.
Remote Sens. 36, 301–312.
Xu, J., Meng, J., 2014. Retrieval of canopy chlorophyll content for spring corn using
multispectral remote sensing data. In: Third International Conference on Agro-
geoinformatics (Agro-geoinformatics 2014). IEEE. pp. 1–5.
Zhang, X., Liao, C., Li, J., Sun, Q., 2013. Fractional vegetation cover estimation in arid
and semi-arid environments using HJ-1 satellite hyperspectral data. Int. J. Appl.
Earth Obs. Geoinf. 21, 506–512.