the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
CropLayer: A high-accuracy 2-meter resolution cropland mapping dataset for China in 2020 derived from Mapbox and Google satellite imagery using data-driven approaches
Abstract. Accurate and detailed cropland maps are essential for agricultural planning, resource management, and food security, particularly in countries like China, where agricultural productivity is high but resources are limited. Despite the availability of several medium-to-high-resolution satellite-based cropland maps, significant discrepancies in area estimates and spatial distribution persist, limiting their utility. This study proposes a data-driven framework for cropland mapping that leverages 2 m High Resolution (HR) imagery from Mapbox and Google. The framework consists of three main stages: First, national imagery is partitioned into 0.05°×0.05° blocks for efficient parallel computation. An Image Quality Assessment (IQA) using ResNet models is performed on both sources to address the challenge of missing image acquisition metadata. Second, a robust cropland identification model integrates Mask2Former for precise segmentation and XGBoost for error evaluation, facilitating iterative improvements through active learning. Finally, a novel integration strategy combines four feature groups—Geography, IQA, Region Property, and Consistency—using XGBoost to merge the datasets into a unified cropland layer, named Croplayer. The Croplayer dataset achieves an overall mapping accuracy of 88.73 %, with 30 out of 32 provincial units reporting area estimates within ±10 % of official statistics. In contrast, only 1 to 9 provinces from seven other existing datasets meet the same accuracy standard. The results highlight Croplayer's potential for applications such as crop yield estimation and agricultural structure analysis, offering a reliable tool for addressing agricultural and food security challenges.
- Preprint
(4362 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2025-44', Anonymous Referee #1, 05 Aug 2025
This manuscript presents a valuable contribution to high-resolution cropland mapping in China through the development of the CropLayer dataset, leveraging data-driven approaches with Mapbox and Google satellite imagery. The integration of deep learning models and active learning strategies to address limitations in existing datasets is methodologically sound. The comprehensive validation against seven existing datasets and official statistics strengthens the credibility of the findings. However, several scientific issues require clarification to enhance the robustness and reproducibility of the work.
1.The image quality assessment (IQA) using ResNet for cover type classification is innovative, comparative analysis of model performance over other state-of-the-art models for IQA would strengthen this choice.
2.The active learning framework for sample selection mentions "stopping criteria" based on the absence of significant artifacts or underestimation errors, but some quantitative thresholds for termination are not clear, for example, what objective metrics guided the decision to stop sampling?
3.The integration strategy using XGBoost to fuse Mapbox and Google results relies on four feature groups (geographic, IQA, regional attributes, consistency). However, the relative importance of each feature group in improving integration accuracy is not analyzed. A permutation importance analysis would clarify which features drive the model’s decisions.
4.The comparison with seven existing datasets shows that CropLayer outperforms others in provincial area estimation, but the reasons for discrepancies in specific regions are not fully explored. Could topographic complexity or cropland fragmentation explain these biases?
5.The Mask2Former model is selected for cropland segmentation based on its highest IoU (88.73%), but the computational efficiency trade-offs (e.g., training time: 11h56m vs. 5h41m (Segformer)) are not discussed. For large-scale applications, model speed and resource requirements are critical.
6.The limitation regarding "inability to capture temporal dynamics" (reliance on 2020 data) is noted, but no feasible path for multi-temporal extension is proposed. For instance, could seasonal imagery from Mapbox/Google (e.g.,2021-2024) be integrated using the same framework?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-44-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2025-44', Anonymous Referee #2, 02 Sep 2025
Overall, the study presents a new 2m resolution cropland dataset (CropLayer) which is a valuable contribution given the fine spatial resolution. However, several major concerns should be addressed regarding the definition of cropland, sampling design, methodological innovation, validation approach, and substantive discussion of advantages brought by the high resolution.
Specific Comments:
- The author mentions significant discrepancies among existing cropland datasets and between datasets and statistical data but overlooks the fact that differences can arise from both varying definitions of "cropland" and classification errors. These two aspects should not be conflated. When developing the 2m CropLayer, the paper should explicitly state which definition of cropland is adopted (e.g., FAO, Ministry of Natural Resources, or the GEOGLAM definition). Furthermore, the comparability between the area calculated from CropLayer and statistical area is questionable if their definitions are inconsistent.
- The reliability of visual interpretation for identifying non-planting coverage (e.g., during off-season in mixed cropland-grassland areas) is concerning. It is necessary to clarify how this challenge was addressed to ensure accuracy.
- The design of the sample selection process is not documented. The spatial distribution of samples appears uneven and potentially unrepresentative, with many cropland samples concentrated around a few major cities. A clear sampling framework (e.g., stratified random sampling) should be described to ensure sample representativeness.
- It is claimed that "independent sample interpretation was conducted." Please explain the specific procedures implemented to guarantee the independence of these samples (e.g., separation of training and validation sets, interpreter blinding protocols, etc).
- Avoid duplication: Lines 223–226 contain redundant information that should be streamlined.
- When introducing the seven existing datasets, it would be reasonable to also document their respective definitions of cropland and discuss the similarities and differences among them. This context is crucial for understanding the discrepancies mentioned.
- The use of provincial statistical area ratio (>80%) as a conditional check during the extraction process, and subsequent comparison with statistical data for validation, introduces circularity. Since the output is conditioned on the statistics, the resulting high correlation is expected and does not constitute independent validation. Validation against statistical data is therefore of limited reference value.
- The authors appear to apply the existing Mask2Former model directly for cropland extraction without significant modifications or improvements. Please clarify the specific innovation(s) of this study compared to simply applying an existing model.
- Given the 2m resolution is sufficient for extracting field boundaries, why did the authors not employ recent parcel-based boundary extraction models to create a vector-based cropland parcel dataset instead of a raster thematic map? A vector dataset at the field level would be far more valuable for applications like crop classification and field-level yield prediction.
- The meaning of "Areas where neither imagery source was utilized" is unclear. Why were large parts of western China not covered by either imagery source? How were the True Negative (TN) areas generated in these regions?
- The Discussion section is relatively weak. The paper should elaborate more on the advantages and quantitative improvements enabled by the 2m resolution in different regions (e.g., fragmented landscapes, smallholder fields), rather than simply stating that 2m is finer than 10-30m. A more substantive analysis of where and how much the resolution enhances accuracy would strengthen the paper.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-44-RC2
Data sets
CropLayer: 2-meter resolution cropland mapping dataset for China in 2020 Hao Jiang, Xia Zhou, and Mengjun Ku https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14726428
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1,259 | 202 | 26 | 1,487 | 28 | 44 |
- HTML: 1,259
- PDF: 202
- XML: 26
- Total: 1,487
- BibTeX: 28
- EndNote: 44
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1