Demonstrates improved crop classification accuracy in agricultural landscapes, indicating effective integration of domain knowledge with deep learning techniques.
Accurate crop classification in complex and heterogeneous agricultural landscapes is often challenged by mixed-pixel effects and spatial autocorrelation. This study proposes a prior-guided crop classification framework that integrates accessible Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) optical and Sentinel-1 synthetic aperture radar (SAR) time-series data with explicit phenological and structural priors. By embedding physically meaningful constraints into temporal feature learning, the model shifts from purely data-driven learning toward biophysically interpretable discrimination between crop types and background classes. Performance was rigorously evaluated using spatial cross-validation (SCV) to ensure geographic independence. Results demonstrate that the prior-guided CNN achieves an overall accuracy (OA) of 98.66% and a Kappa of 0.9832, outperforming unguided deep learning and conventional machine learning models. Notably, the framework exhibits high spatial robustness, with a minimal performance gap between random and spatial validation (ΔOA = 0.0049). In addition to improving classification accuracy, integrating phenological features with SAR-based prior information enhances the stability of non-crop categories in fragmented scenarios, while leveraging readily available medium-resolution data to support large-scale applications. These findings demonstrate that embedding physically meaningful prior knowledge into multi-source time-series learning improves classification accuracy while enhancing spatial generalizability and interpretability. More broadly, the proposed framework offers a transferable paradigm for integrating domain knowledge with deep learning, providing a practical and scalable solution for crop mapping in heterogeneous agricultural landscapes using widely accessible medium-resolution data.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: