Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 186 (2021) 106173

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Electronics in Agriculture

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

Original papers

Large-scale winter catch crop monitoring with Sentinel-2 time series and
machine learning–An alternative to on-site controls?
Christian Schulz a, *, Ann-Kathrin Holtgrave a, b, Birgit Kleinschmit a
a
Technische Universität Berlin, Institute for Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning, Geoinformation in Environmental Planning Lab, Straße des 17. Juni
145, 10623 Berlin, Germany
b
Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institute, Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries, Bundesallee 64, 38116 Brunswick, Germany

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The European legislative guidelines on the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) lead to an obligation of area-wide
Random forest information about cross-compliant Greening measures in EU countries. But by on-site controlling, agricultural
Cover crop authorities can monitor only a small portion of all registered parcels. With the Copernicus Programme, the freely
Normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI)
available Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 imagery increasingly supports remote sensing-based agricultural monitoring
Temporal metrics
on a large-scale. However, most prototypes lack the topic of winter catch cropping. Therefore, we developed a
Phenological profile
new machine learning method for catch crop monitoring and detection at the parcel-level. To gain training and
test data for supervised machine learning, we collected winter catch crop parcel data from different years
(2016–2019) and four federal states in Germany. Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) time series
were calculated for each parcel from Sentinel-2 data within the typical winter catch crop cultivation season
(July-April). We revealed distinctive temporal patterns of catch cropping and developed nineteen descriptive
features for automatized prediction. Then, we trained fifteen Random Forest classifiers comprising different
regions and years and conducted a multi-level validation to identify the model with the highest robustness on
new data. The Random Forest classifier trained with the input data from all federal states and years outperformed
the other models. It reached a mean prediction accuracy of 84% for both classes (catch crop and non-catch crop)
across eleven different spatio-temporal domains. Under optimal annual weather conditions it reached accuracies
close to 90%. Anomalies caused by heat waves and early frost events were found to have a high influence on the
phenology of catch crops and thus lead to reduced prediction accuracies. From the set of predictors, those
features with the highest importance measured the correlation between the observed time series and a simulated
NDVI phenological profile. We concluded that catch cropping parcels are automatically separable from parcels
with other winter cultivations (e.g., winter cereals, grasslands, fallow) with Sentinel-2 NDVI time series data.
Different catch crop subgroups (i.e., seed mixes) could not be differentiated by our approach due to very similar
phenological profiles. Nonetheless, the used approach allows for large-scale winter catch crop monitoring and
supports authorities in the selection of parcels with high demand for on-site controlling. By merging the training
datasets from different federal states and years, we could overcome the typical spatial and temporal overfitting
problem in machine learning. Therefore, the study’s final classifier can be reliably transferred to new datasets in
Germany and other regions with similar bio-geographical conditions.

1. Introduction
Catch crops—often referred to as cover crops—are crop mix cultiva­
tions usually grown in summer or winter between the main cropping
seasons and are subsidized as Greening measures for farmland diversi­
fication and soil protection (Magdoff and Van Es, 2009; OSCAR, 2016).
In this study, we address the example of Germany, where catch crops are
mostly cultivated as winter green cover between late summer until at
least the 15th of February when the cultivation is plowed and the main
summer crop is directly sown (German Federal Ministry of Food and
Agriculture, 2015). The used seed mixes have a large variety of species
such as oilseed radish (Raphanus sativus var. oleiformis), white mustard

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: christian.schulz.1@tu-berlin.de (C. Schulz), ann-kathrin.holtgrave@thuenen.de (A.-K. Holtgrave), birgit.kleinschmit@tu-berlin.de
(B. Kleinschmit).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2021.106173
Received 18 December 2020; Received in revised form 9 April 2021; Accepted 12 April 2021
Available online 6 May 2021
0168-1699/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
C. Schulz et al.
(Sinapsis alba), red clover (Trifolium pratense), phacelia (Phacelia tana­
cetifolia), buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum) and black oat (Avena stri­
gosa). More information on commonly used seed mixes and their links to
management practices can be found in the Cover Crop and Living Mulch
Toolbox (OSCAR, 2016).
Winter catch crops protect agricultural soils from erosion and pre­
vent nitrogen contamination of the groundwater caused by over­
fertilization during winter time (Dabney et al., 2001; Hargrove, 1991;
Wilke and Snapp, 2008; Meisinger et al., 1991). As green fertilizers, they
reduce the need for artificial fertilizers and therefore promote sustain­
able land use and climate protection (Thorup-Kristensen, 1994; Delgado
et al., 2007). Furthermore, they are important nutrition sources and
provide habitats for many species, enriching the biodiversity in rural
landscapes (Delgado et al., 2007). These and other ecosystem services
provided by catch cropping were summarized by Blanco-Canqui et al.
(2015) and Żuk-Gołaszewska et al. (2019).
Winter catch cropping became an important subsidized measure for
agricultural parcels with ecological priority in the European Union (EU),
which accounts for approximately 5% of farmlands in Germany (German
Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture, 2015). It supports the aim of
biodiversity-rich landscape features on agricultural land by the EU biodi­
versity strategy for 2030 (European Commission, 2020). For the past
twenty years, the EU Water Framework Directive (Directive 2000/60/
EC) has promoted catch cropping to protect water bodies from over­
fertilization. The main legal background for the on-site monitoring and
the obligation of area-wide information on catch cropping areas origi­
nated from the European legislative guidelines on the Common Agri­
cultural Policy (CAP) (EU Regulation No 1307/2013). With the revision
of the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU Regulation 2018/
746), new techniques from remote sensing became evident source of
data for agricultural monitoring.
German federal agriculture authorities are legally bound to monitor
the parcels registered for catch cropping and decide on subsidization
under the CAP Greening guidelines. So far, monitoring was done by on-
site controls where conditions such as the sowing dates, the ground
coverage rates, the tillage dates and the used seed mixes are surveyed.
These controls require large numbers of inspectors to survey several
hundred thousand parcels within a short time frame of each catch crop
season. As a consequence, a very low percentage of approximately 5% of
all registered parcels are able to be controlled each year.
To fulfill the legal requirements of area-wide agricultural monitoring
and the reduction of on-site controls, alternative methods from the field
of remote sensing are strongly encouraged by European authorities.
With the Copernicus Sentinel missions managed by the European Space
Agency (ESA), a large archive of free satellite imagery has been available
since 2014. As a consequence, many studies cover the topics of crop and
meadow identification and the monitoring of managing practices such
as harvesting, mowing and crop rotations based on satellite data of the
sensors Sentinel-1 (S1) (e.g., Tamm et al., 2016; Bargiel, 2017, Taravat
et al., 2019; Garioud et al., 2020) and Sentinel-2 (S2) (e.g., Immitzer
et al., 2016; Kolecka et al., 2018; Sitokonstantinou et al., 2018; Griffiths
et al., 2019a, 2019b; Ottosen et al., 2019; Preidl et al., 2020; Solano-
Correa et al., 2020) or both sensors (e.g., Veloso et al., 2017; Kussul
et al., 2018; Van Tricht et al., 2018; Pipia et al., 2019; D’Andrimont
et al., 2020; Holtgrave et al., 2020). The Dynamic Cropland Mask (Valero
et al., 2016) of the Sen2-Agri project by ESA and the planned Copernicus
Land Monitoring Service High Resolution Layer Crop Types by the European
Environmental Agency (Copernicus Programme, 2020) are two exam­
ples of the vast application of S1 and S2 data for automatized agricul­
tural monitoring on the large scale. Misra et al. (2020) outlined the
major benefits of S2 time series data for phenology research in crop
mapping and yield estimation. Moreover, studies from the European
Commission’s Joint Research Centre (Devos et al., 2017; D’Andrimont
et al., 2018; Devos et al., 2018a; Devos et al., 2018b) show that the
extraction of temporal markers from S1 and S2 time series data is crucial
to quantify traits of phenology and detect management events.
2
Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 186 (2021) 106173
However, few remote sensing projects in Europe and North America
have dealt with the monitoring of Greening measures for farmland
diversification in agriculture. Parcel data like the Integrated Adminis­
tration and Control System (IACS) and agricultural control data by the
federal ministries abide by strict data protection regulations which
limits the set of possible computing platforms and data archives. The
agricultural practices monitoring product of the sen4CAP project integrated
a prototype for catch crop assessment using the CREODIAS cloud
computing platform (European Space Agency, 2018). They calculated
temporal markers from S1 and S2 data for the estimation of harvest dates
and growth on catch crop parcels in the pilot countries Czech Republic,
Lithuania, Romania and the Netherlands (European Space Agency,
2018). Thieme et al. (2020) and Peredo et al. (2019) introduced the
application CCROP for winter cover crop performance and biomass
estimation with the Google Earth Engine cloud computing platform
using time series from Landsat and S2 data. Previous studies on the
control for cover crop subsidy payments in the U.S. focused on mono-
temporal SPOT and Landsat images (Hively et al., 2009, 2015). All
these prototypes can generally benefit the estimation of the success of
catch/cover cropping. However, the aforementioned approaches require
a parcel-wise interpretation and—more importantly—specialized
remote sensing knowledge for decision-making from the user. A fully-
automatic monitoring and detection approach, based on a replicable
set of catch crop-specific metrics and temporal features, would be more
efficient and practical for the controlling authorities.
By using Copernicus earth observation data and machine learning
classifiers, we aim to support the controlling agencies in their legal
obligation for CAP CC monitoring. Thus, the objective of this study is the
development of a new, fully-automated method for large-scale winter
catch crop detection based on the example of Germany. Considering the
challenge of area-wide monitoring and reduction of on-site controls, we
defined two main research questions: 1) Can winter catch cropping be
monitored from Sentinel-2 image time series data? 2) Which spatio-temporal
limitations arise from fully-automated machine learning methods?
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study area
The study area comprises the federal states of North Rhine-
Westphalia (NW), Lower Saxony (LS), Brandenburg (BB), and
Rhineland-Palatinate (RP). These federal states belong to the geospatial
units Northern Lowlands and Central Uplands of Germany (Ssymank,
1994). With approximately 6,000,000 ha, they comprise 36.6% of the
agricultural area in Germany (Destatis, 2019). Due to differing historical
conditions, the study area represents a gradient of agricultural land­
scapes ranging from small, less-intensively used parcels (RP) to very large,
high-intensively used parcels (BB). According to the Köppen-Geiger clas­
sification scheme, all four states have warm summers and no dry season
(Beck et al., 2018). Geospatial samples about catch crop cultivation in
these federal states were made available by agricultural authorities and
farmers during the timeStamp project (Thünen Institute, 2021). The
datasets and their respective years are outlined within the study area
map (Fig. 1).
2.2. Data
2.2.1. Agricultural parcel data
For training data acquisition, we collected approximately 150,000
parcel geometries with winter catch crop cultivation and 3,600,000
parcel geometries without catch crop cultivation from different federal
agricultural agencies. The eleven raw datasets were from four different
years (2016–2019) and four federal countries (Table 1). For LS and NW,
we received on-site control information of the catch crop parcels. For BB,
we received catch crop registered parcels without on-site control in­
formation. For RP, one survey dataset with voluntary information from
C. Schulz et al. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 186 (2021) 106173

Fig. 1. Study area and agricultural parcel datasets used in this study. Overview map: Administrative borders and available samples within the federal states. Detail
maps: Parcel examples of the main class datasets with a 10 km diameter circle from different years and the federal states of Brandenburg (BB16/17/18), Lower
Saxony (LS16/17/18), North Rhine-Westphalia (NW16/17/18/19) and Rhineland-Palatinate (RP18). Bar charts: Number of catch crop subclass samples in North
Rhine-Westphalia 2019 (NW19_s) and Rhineland-Palatinate (RP18_s). Administrative borders: GADM, 2020. Projection: ETRS89 / UTM zone 32 N (EPSG: 25832).

farmers was available. For the datasets of NW and RP, partial informa­
tion on the cultivated seed mixes and winter crops was available.
From the raw data, we created eleven main class datasets for model
training and testing. For a better comparison of the machine learning
classifiers trained from samples in different spatio-temporal domains,
we decided on the reduction of each parcel dataset to an equal and
randomly selected number of 1000 parcels. To prevent possible over­
weighting problems of a specific class in the machine learning models,
both classes (catch crop and non-catch crop) were equally proportioned to
500 samples each. The final main class datasets are available in the
supplements of this article.
We also created two subclass datasets with different crop mix sub­
groups from the records of RP in 2018 and NW in 2019 (Fig. 1). The
samples of each subclass dataset were aggregated into groups by the
species or seed information given in the raw data. For the NW19_s
dataset, we chose 1,035 catch crop parcels for which information was
available from on-site controls and classified them into eight catch crop
subgroups. For all other 1,372 samples, no or unclear species data were
available. For the RP18_s dataset, 276 samples with seed information on
both main classes catch crop and non-catch crop were available. All other
samples were tagged as ‘unknown’ or ‘other’. We aggregated them to 5
catch crop subclasses and 8 non-catch crop subclasses, with 55 and 221
samples respectively (Fig. A.2). The subclass datasets are available as
supplements of this article.
2.2.2. NDVI time series data
In the initial stage of this study, we decided on the best spectral index
for time series-based agricultural monitoring. Thus, we compared time
series of different multispectral indices from S2 data for the catch crop
and non-catch crop parcels of RP18 including the Normalized Difference
Vegetation Index (NDVI), the Enhanced Vegetation Index, the
Chlorophyll-Red-Edge Index, and the Soil Adjusted Vegetation Index
(Schulz et al., 2019). Within all indices, we found similar temporal
trends and patterns for each class. Since the class based characteristics
and differences were found to be most pronounced in the NDVI time
series, we selected this index for further analysis. Within the same step,
we decided on the timeframe from July to April as most suitable for
winter catch crop monitoring as it comprises the harvest event of the
previous summer crop and the sowing of the following crop.
The NDVI derived from multi-spectral, optical satellite data is
commonly used for vegetation monitoring in remote sensing (e.g.,
Kuenzer et al., 2015; Ban and Yousif, 2016). As a ratio of the reflected
red and near-infrared spectra of light, the NDVI allows for the estimation
of the chlorophyll content of vegetation surfaces. It ranges between − 1
and +1 with high values close to + 1 indicating dense and phenologi­
cally active vegetation surfaces and values near to 0 and lower indi­
cating non-vegetated or phenologically non-active surfaces. NDVI
observations collected as time series facilitate the measurement of
spectral-temporal profiles (e.g., Förster et al., 2012; Verger et al., 2016),
phenological chronologies (e.g., Gerstmann et al., 2016) or trends and
abrupt changes (e.g., Verbesselt et al., 2010), which is especially useful
for crop monitoring on the pixel- or parcel-levels.
For the NDVI time series extraction, the GFZ Time Series System for
Sentinel-2 (GTS2) (German Research Centre for Geosciences, 2020) was
used. This archive provides S2 Level 2A products with a very high spatial
accuracy and cloud masks improved for Germany. This allowed us to
attain spatially precise data even for very small parcels and to reduce the
number of observations negatively affected by clouds. As input bands for
the NDVI calculation, we used bands 4 (red) and 8 (near-infrared), each
with 10 m spatial resolution.

3
C. Schulz et al. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 186 (2021) 106173

Table 1 and observation gaps. The tables are available in the supplements of this
Raw datasets for training data extraction from the federal states of Brandenburg, article.
Lower Saxony, North Rhine-Westphalia, and Rhineland-Palatinate. Fig. 2 gives an overview of the temporal quality of the unfilled NDVI
Federal state Record Parcel number Origin Source* time series datasets. Over the different input years, the temporal
year
catch non-
coverage and resolution increased, with median observation numbers
crop catch ranging between 10 and 13 in 2016 and 24 to 40 in 2018. The higher
crop number of observations in recent years can mainly be explained by the
Brandenburg 2016 2,895 159,123 ecological MLUK BB launch of the S2B satellite in March 2017. Across all datasets, the
priority observation numbers have a large range, with a minimum of 3 and a
parcels maximum of 54. Observation numbers are strongly influenced by parcel
Brandenburg 2017 2,562 161,530 ecological MLUK BB sizes, leading to a reduced number of valid (i.e., “non-cloudy”) at smaller
priority
parcels
parcels. This also explains why in RP, a federal state with very small
Brandenburg 2018 2,757 210,201 ecological MLUK BB parcels, the median observation number of 24 is much lower compared
priority to other datasets from 2018, with 39 to 40.
parcels
Lower Saxony 2016 62,000 on-site MELV NI
2.3. Methods
–
control data
– 909,676 InVeKoS MELV NI
parcels 2.3.1. Exploratory data analysis
Lower Saxony 2017 32,700 – on-site MELV NI The Exploratory data analysis (EDA) (Tukey, 1977) provides us with
control data
statistical tools for developing hypotheses on the used data related to our
– 913,743 ecological SLA NI
priority research questions. Our first goal was to reveal phenological cycles and
parcels time frames for winter catch cropping across the NDVI time series of the
Lower Saxony 2018 32,000 – on-site MELV NI main class datasets. Our second goal was to find pattern variations
control data within the main classes by analyzing the NDVI time series of the subclass
912,988 ecological SLA NI
datasets.
–
priority
parcels
North Rhine- 2016 2,910 – on-site LWK NRW 2.3.2. Feature engineering
Westphalia control data Based on the outcomes of the EDA, we developed a set of descriptive
85,849 ecological MULNV
–
features with high information rate for catch crop monitoring and likely
priority NRW
parcels
to be highly predictive for automated catch crop detection. These fea­
North Rhine- 2017 3,336 – on-site LWK NRW tures were then used as input variables (i.e., predictors) for the training
Westphalia control data and testing of machine learning models.
– 86,060 ecological MULNV
priority NRW
2.3.3. Prediction modelling
parcels
North Rhine- 2018 4,269 272 on-site LWK NRW For the prediction of the target classes catch crop and other with the
Westphalia control data predictors created in the feature engineering process, we chose Random
– 137,704 InVeKoS MULNV Forest (RF) (Breiman, 2001) as it is known as a robust and transparent
parcels NRW
supervised machine learning approach. Fig. 3 outlines the basic work­
North Rhine- 2019 2,407 – on-site LWK NRW
Westphalia control data
flow for developing a single RF model in our study. First, we calculated
– 137,704 InVeKoS MULNV the filled NDVI time series with daily resolution based on the full parcel
parcels NRW geometries and satellite image data. Then, for all samples (i.e., parcels), a
Rhineland- 2018 110 241 voluntary AgroScience set of predictors was extracted from the time series and labeled ac­
Palatinate survey/
cording to the input classes catch crop and non-catch crop. Then, the
interviews
predictors dataset was split into training (70%) and test (30%) samples.
*
Ministerium für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und Klimaschutz Brandenburg With the training samples, the model was carried out using 10-fold
(MLUK BB); Niedersächsisches Ministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und cross-validation repeated three times. Finally, the predictive model
Verbraucherschutz (MELV); Servicezentrum Landentwicklung und Agrarför­
was validated with the test data in a model-internal accuracy
derung Niedersachsen (SLA); Landwirtschaftskammer Nordrhein-Westfalen
assessment.
(LWK NRW); Ministerium für Umwelt, Landwirtschaft, Natur- und Ver­
braucherschutz des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (MULNV NRW); Institute for
Based on several combinations of the main class datasets, fifteen RF
Agroecology, RLP AgroScience GmbH (AgroScience). classifiers were created. The classifiers were named after their input
datasets comprising data of a single region and year (rf_BB16/17/18
rf_LS16/17/18, rf_NW16/17/18/19, rf_RP18), of multiple regions with
To extract NDVI time series vectors from the GTS2 archive, the
the same year (rf_ALL16/17/18), and data of all regions and years
following steps were conducted for each parcel: a) download of the S2
(rf_ALL). a) For the single-region, single-year RF models, each initial
image time series, b) calculation of the NDVI for each image, c)
dataset consisted of 1000 samples except for RP18, where only 351
computation of the mean NDVI pixel value, d) calculation of an equi­
samples were available. In order to have both classes equally propor­
distant time series with daily time steps, and e) linear temporal inter­
tioned in RP18, we raised the number of catch crop samples by dupli­
polation of the missing values within the time series. By steps d) and e),
cation and reduced the non-catch crop samples, resulting in a dataset
two univariate NDVI time series tables with daily resolution coded by a
with 440 samples (220 samples per class). b) For the multi-regional,
unique parcel-ID were created. One table comprises the real observa­
single-year RF models, all training and test datasets with the same
tions (i.e, the unfilled NDVI time series). This table was used for quality
input year were aggregated. c) For the multi-regional, multi-temporal
assessment regarding the number of available observations and the
RF model, the training and test datasets of all models were aggregated.
length of data gaps within the time series. The other table comprises the
Supervised machine learning models such as RF often perform well
real observations with interpolated values (i.e., the filled NDVI time se­
within their own input data, while performing worse for the prediction
ries). This step is necessary for the uniform calculation and comparison
of other data. To find the most robust model with a high temporal,
of temporal metrics throughout datasets with different observation dates
spatial, and class-level transferability, we conducted a multi-level

4
C. Schulz et al.
Fig. 2. Observation dates from July to April of the unfilled Sentinel-2 NDVI time series data from Brandenburg 2016–2018 (BB16/17/18), Lower Saxony 2016–2018
(LS16/17/18), North Rhine-Westphalia 2016–2019 (NW16/17/18/19), and Rhineland-Palatinate 2018 (RP18). Median and range refers to the number of available
observations across all parcels of each dataset. For better visualization, the number of time series for each plot was reduced to 50 random samples.
Fig. 3. Flowchart for data pre-processing, training and testing using the
example of a single Random Forest model based on time series from Sentinel-2
Level 2A (S2 L2A) products from the GTS2 archive (German Research Centre for
Geosciences, 2020).
validation of the RF prediction models. First, we compared the overall
accuracies (OAs), sensitivities (SENS) and specificities (SPEC) from the
model-internal accuracy assessments. The OA is the proportion of
correctly classified samples according to their input labels. The SENS is
the proportion of catch crop samples that were correctly predicted as the
5
Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 186 (2021) 106173
target class catch crop. The SPEC is the proportion of non-catch crop
samples that were correctly predicted as the target class other. Secondly,
we cross-validated all models with their respective test datasets according to
the OA, SENS and SPEC to determine the strengths and limitations of
each model on the spatial and temporal level. Thirdly, we assessed the
variable importances of all predictors. The variable importance is a sta­
tistical metric for the weight of each predictor in the RF model which
was used to define the most useful features for automated catch crop
detection. Finally, we compared the Out-Of-Bag probability (PROB) rates
of the best classifier for the prediction of the target class catch crop on the
main class and subclass datasets to define prediction strengths and
limitations on the class-level. The PROB is an estimate for each sample to
be correctly labeled by the proportion of the trees that voted for the
target class. It shows the likelihood for the test samples being predicted
as catch crop, with values ranging from 0 to 1. The higher the PROB value
of a sample is, the higher the model weights the likelihood that it is a
parcel with catch crop cultivation. Samples with a PROB higher than 0.5
were labeled by the RF model as catch crop. Samples with lower values
were labeled as other.
2.3.4. Software environment
The algorithms and RF models developed for this study were
implemented via virtual Docker containers into the timeStamp software
prototype which allows for large-scale automatized catch crop analysis
on the parcel-level (Thünen Institute, 2021). This software saves the
raster data from the GTS2 archive as parcel-wise clipped image time
series into a PostGIS database. All further processing steps in this study
were performed with the statistical computing language R (RStudio
C. Schulz et al.
Team, 2020). For raster data manipulation within the PostGIS database
and downloading NDVI time series, we used the packages rpostgis
(Bucklin and Basille, 2019) and RPostgreSQL (Conway et al., 2017). For
time series filling and calculation of the predictors, we used the packages
zoo (Zeileis et al., 2020), hydroGOF (Zambrano-Bigiarini, 2020), tsou­
tliers (de Lacalle, 2019), and changepoint (Killick et al., 2016). For RF
modelling, we used the packages caret (Kuhn et al., 2020) and ran­
domForest (Liaw and Wiener, 2018). For better reproducibility, the input
data, scripts and models are available in the supplements of this article.
3. Results
3.1. Exploratory data analysis
3.1.1. Main class datasets
For nine of the eleven main class datasets, we found generalizable
trends and unique temporal patterns for catch crop cultivation. As
shown in Fig. 4, the NDVI time series of the class catch crop commonly
shows a strong positive trend between October and December and a
negative trend between January and April. NDVI time series of the class
non-catch crop always have a negative or no trend in autumn and a
positive trend in spring. For the dataset RP18, the typical pattern of the
class catch crop was much weaker and more similar to the class non-catch
crop. For BB16, no visual difference between the two classes was found.
In the NDVI time series heatmaps, additional temporal patterns were
found (Fig. A.1). First, in the catch crop time series of some datasets (e.
g., LS17), abrupt NDVI drops in July and mid-February could be
observed. Secondly, the time series within the class non-catch crop
showed larger temporal variance in each dataset compared to the time
series of the class catch crop. We also see that these patterns are not
clearly visible in the datasets of BB16 and RP18.
3.1.2. Subclass datasets
For nine of the ten catch crop subclasses within the dataset NW19_s,
we found positive NDVI trends in autumn and negative trends in spring
(Fig. 5). This observation fits the general temporal pattern of catch crop
cultivation found in the main class datasets. The subclass grass-clover mix
differs from the other subclasses with a general negative NDVI trend
until October and a slow positive growth until March.
For most of the catch crop subclasses of the dataset RP18_s (Fig. A.2),
we found less typical results. However, the NDVI curves of most catch
crop subclasses show a slight positive peak between October and
January which matches the main class pattern for catch crops. The mean
NDVI curves of nearly all non-catch crop subclasses fit the mean NDVI
time series of the main class datasets for non-catch crops.
3.2. Feature engineering
Transferring administrative requirements from on-site controlling to
the feature engineering process was a major challenge of this study.
Thus, the set of descriptive features should cover the following aspects:
a) catch cropping-specific metrics for a reliable and reproducible
monitoring of agricultural management practices (e.g., sowing, har­
vesting, plowing) and phenotypical stages (>40% ground coverage);
and b) metrics for machine learning-based detection and differentiation
of parcels with the target classes catch crop and other.
Based on the outcomes of the EDA, we pre-defined temporal win­
dows by the day of year (DOY) in which agricultural management events
occur and differences between the classes catch crop and non-catch-crop
most likely arise. These temporal windows include the time frame from
catch crop sowing in late summer until winter dormancy (DOY 182 -
DOY 356) and the time frame from winter dormancy until tillage in
spring (DOY 1 - DOY 120). To consider the spatio-temporal variability of
phenophases caused by different weather conditions and climate and
due to potentially long data gaps in the cloudy winter period, the win­
dows were intentionally chosen to be wide. This attribute allows for the
6
Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 186 (2021) 106173
features to be more robust and comparable over different spatio-
temporal domains.
We then developed nineteen descriptive features and statistical
metrics. All parameters are described in detail in Table 2. In summary,
they can be divided into univariate and bivariate features. The univar­
iate features measure the strength and progression of the NDVI during
autumn and spring (e.g., minima, maxima, trends) or points in time
where specific conditions and thresholds are reached (e.g., level shifts,
maxima). The bivariate features measure the correlation of the observed
time series to a standardized catch crop NDVI time series profile. The
results for the main class and subclass datasets are available in the
supplements and were summarized in Fig. A.4.
3.3. Prediction modelling
3.3.1. Model-internal validation
Table 3 summarizes the model-internal statistics of all RF models.
There is a large variety across all models with OAs ranging from 0.76 to
0.91, SENS from 0.78 to 0.91, and SPEC from 0.65 to 0.94. According to
the OA, rf_BB16 performed the worst and rf_RP18 performed the best of
all models. The multi-region, single-year models showed more similar
OA, SENS and SPEC values than the single-region, single-year models.
The model rf_ALL reached OA, SENS and SPEC with values around 0.83.
3.3.2. Cross-validation
Table 4 shows the cross-validation results of all RF models against
their respective test datasets. Each column of the confusion matrix
represents a model while each row represents a test dataset. A detailed
version of this table with information on the SENS, SPEC and the mean
values of each metric can be found in Table A.3.
(a) The single-region, single-year models reached OAs of 0.35 to 0.88
across the test datasets of the other models. The models rf_BB16
and rf_RP18 showed the lowest OAs with 0.35 to 0.69 across all
datasets except their own. And conversely, other models per­
formed worse on BB16 and RP18. The mean SENS values of all
models (0.31 to 0.76) are lower than the mean SPEC values of all
models (0.66 to 0.90). Some models showed very low SENS
values compared to other datasets. For instance, rf_NW19 reaches
a SENS of 0.01 for BB16. A higher detection rate was found across
models with the same input year. For instance, the model
rf_NW18 performed better on the datasets BB18, LS18 and RP18
than models from other years. In contrast, no higher detection
rate was found across models with the same input region. For
instance, the model rf_NW16 did not perform better on the
datasets NW17, NW18 and NW19 than other models.
(b) The multi-region, single-year models reached similarly high ac­
curacies as the single-region models. They showed high OAs on
its respective test data and low accuracies on the test data of other
models. Additionally, they had high performances for datasets
within the same input year and low performances for datasets
from other input years. For instance, the model rf_ALL18 reached
OAs above 0.80 in BB18, LS18, NW18, and RP18. For datasets
from other years, it reached OAs below 0.80.
(c) The multi-region, multi-year model rf_ALL, trained with samples
from all models, reached OAs between 0.67 and 0.91 across all
test datasets. It had the highest mean OA of all models (0.83) and
the lowest standard deviation (0.05). In addition, the mean SENS
and mean SPEC, with 0.82 and 0.84 respectively, were the most
similar compared to all other models.
3.3.3. Variable importance
The variable importance is shown in Fig. 6. From the set of nineteen
predictors, the bivariate features rpearson_182_365 and rpear­
son_001_120 showed a variable importance of more than 50% across all
models. Those predictors that quantify trends and sums in spring and
C. Schulz et al. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 186 (2021) 106173

Fig. 4. Original NDVI time series observations (black dots) and its mean average LOESS smoothed trend (orange line) of the eleven main class datasets split into the
input classes catch crop and non-catch crop. For better visualization, the number of time series for each plot was reduced to 50 random samples. LOESS (Locally
Estimated Scatterplot Smoothing) is a local regression filter and was set up with a 10% span for smoothing the time series and showing the weighted average profile.
(For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

7
C. Schulz et al. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 186 (2021) 106173

Fig. 5. NDVI time series (black dots) for different catch crop subclasses and its mean average LOESS smoothed trend (orange curve) based on the NW19_s dataset.
The number of time series for each plot was randomly reduced to a maximum of 20 for better visualization. The LOESS filter was set up with a 10% span for
smoothing the time series and showing the weighted average profile. The original sample number (n) for each class is stated in the upper right corner of each plot.
(For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

late autumn had an importance of less than 25% on average across all
models. The level shift predictors that measure the DOY and number of
abrupt changes in the NDVI time series had the lowest importance of less
than 10%.
3.3.4. Probability rates
Fig. 7 summarizes the PROB rates of the model rf_ALL for the samples
of the class catch crop in the main class datasets. We found mean PROB
values between 0.6 and 0.9 across the eleven datasets. The lowest values
and high ranges were found for the datasets RP18 and BB16. For samples
of the class non-catch crop (not shown in Fig. 7), we found mean values
between 0.1 and 0.2 across all datasets.
In Fig. 8, the PROB rates of the model rf_ALL for the subclass input
datasets are summarized. Within the dataset NW19_s, samples of the
catch crop subclass grass-clover mix had the lowest mean PROB rates of
approximately 0.6 and a range between 0.4 and 0.8. The samples of all
other groups reached mean values above 0.8 and a range between 0.7
and 0.9. Within the dataset RP18_s, we found PROB values ranging be­
tween 0.3 and 0.9 with mean values between 0.7 and 0.8 for samples of
the catch crop subclasses.
4. Discussion
4.1. Detectability of catch crops
Even though precise metrics for parcel-based performance and
biomass estimation (CCROP, Thieme et al., 2020; Peredo et al., 2019)
and temporal markers for agricultural practices monitoring (sen4CAP,
European Space Agency, 2018) have been developed, methods for
automated winter catch crop detection are still lacking. Based on the
example of CAP Greening parcels in Germany and S2 data, we developed
novel algorithms for feature extraction from NDVI time series to mea­
sure the temporal stages of winter catch cropping and for machine
learning-based classification.
According to an EDA of eleven training datasets, specific temporal
patterns for catch crop and non-catch crop parcels were identified for
different years. The strong positive NDVI trend in autumn relates to the
major growing period of catch crops which starts earlier and is stronger
than in other winter cultures. The negative trend in spring relates to the
plowing of the catch crop while most other crops are allowed to continue
growing. We expect the unique temporal pattern for winter catch crop
cultivation stages generally applies across upcoming years at the
research area. The different observation numbers and data gaps within
the NDVI time series datasets shown in Fig. 2 did not exert visually a
major influence on the overall patterns found in the exploratory data
analysis. For all years, we can observe similar class-specific increases
and decreases in spring and autumn (Fig. 4). However, two of the eleven
input datasets showed variations from the unique catch crop phenology
which led to lower prediction accuracies of the developed models. For
example, the catch crop cultivation season 2016/2017 in Germany was
highly influenced by hot and dry weather conditions until late
September and frosts in mid-November. The resulting slow and patchy

8
C. Schulz et al. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 186 (2021) 106173

Table 2
Descriptive features for catch crop monitoring and prediction derived from NDVI time series.
Predictor Description Example for a real catch crop parcel

ndvi_min_182_365 The parameter corresponds to the minimum of photosynthetically active

NDVI minimum between 1 July and 31 Dec. vegetation cover of the parcel. The value is expected to be low with a preliminary
harvest event before catch crop cultivation.

ndvi_max_182_365 The parameter corresponds to the maximum of photosynthetically active

NDVI maximum between 1 July and 31 Dec. vegetation cover of the parcel. The value is expected to be high with a successful
catch crop cultivation.

ndvi_mean_182_365 The parameter corresponds to an active vegetation cover of the parcel. The value is
NDVI mean between 1 July and 31 Dec. expected to be high with a successful catch crop cultivation.

ndvi_mean_var_182_365 The parameter corresponds to the temporal steadiness of the vegetation activity of
NDVI mean variance between 1 July and 31 Dec. the parcel. The value is expected to be high with abrupt changes caused by
harvesting, plowing or frost.

ndvi_trend_196_273 The parameter corresponds to the strength of the vegetation activity growth on the
NDVI trend slope between 15 July and 30 Sept. parcel. The value is expected to be high with a successful catch crop cultivation.
Negative values correspond to a harvest or plowing event within the timeframe.

ndvi_trend_213_258 The parameter corresponds to the strength of the vegetation activity growth on the
NDVI trend slope between 1 August and 15 Sept. parcel. The value is expected to be high with a successful catch crop cultivation.
Negative values correspond to a harvest or plowing event within the timeframe.

ndvi_trend_274_332 The parameter corresponds to the strength of the vegetation activity growth on the
NDVI trend slope between 1 Oct. and 28 Nov. parcel. The value is expected to be high with a successful catch crop cultivation.
Negative values correspond to a harvest or plowing event within the timeframe.

ndvi_sum_232_272 The parameter corresponds to the strength of the vegetation activity on the parcel.
NDVI sum between 22 August and 29 Sept. The value is expected to be high with a successful catch crop cultivation.

ndvi_sum_278_348 The parameter corresponds to the strength of the vegetation activity on the parcel.
NDVI sum between 5 Oct. and 14 Dec. The value is expected to be high with a successful catch crop cultivation.

ndvi_sum_001_046 The parameter corresponds to the strength of the vegetation activity on the parcel.
NDVI sum between 1 Jan. and 15 Feb. The value is expected to be high with a successful catch crop cultivation.

doy_ndvi_max_182_365 The parameter corresponds to the date of the maximum. The value is expected in
Day of year of the NDVI maximum between 1 July late autumn between the sowing date of the catch crop and the start of winter
and 31 Dec. dormancy.

doy_ndvi_min_182_365 The parameter corresponds to the date of the minimum. The value is expected in
Day of year of the NDVI minimum between 1 July late summer between the harvest date of the preliminary main crop and the sowing
and 31 Dec. date of the catch crop.

rpearson_ts_sim_182_365 The parameter corresponds to the similarity of the observed time series with an
Pearson’s r of the simulated and the observed NDVI averaged (i.e., simulated) time series for catch crop cultivation (Verger et al., 2016;
time series between 1 July and 31 Dec. Heupel et al., 2019). The value is expected to be high with a successful catch crop
cultivation.

rpearson_ts_sim_1_120 The parameter corresponds to the similarity of the observed time series with an
Pearson’s r of the simulated and the observed NDVI averaged (i.e., simulated) time series for catch crop cultivation (Verger et al., 2016;
time series between 1 Jan. and 30 April
(continued on next page)

9
C. Schulz et al. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 186 (2021) 106173

Table 2 (continued )
Predictor Description Example for a real catch crop parcel

Heupel et al., 2019). The value is expected to be high with a successful catch crop
cultivation.

number_level_shifts_182_365 Outliers of the type ’level shift’ (de Lacalle, 2019) indicate abrupt changes in the
Number of level shifts between 1 July and 31 Dec. time series. The value is expected to be higher with the number of harvesting,
plowing, frost and dryness events.

doy_first_level_shift_182_365 The parameter corresponds to the date of the first outlier of the type ’level shift’ (de
Day of year of the first NDVI level shift between 1 Lacalle, 2019). The value is expected to correlate with the plowing/harvest date of
July and 31 Dec. the preliminary main crop in late summer.

doy_first_level_shift_001_120 The parameter corresponds to the date of the first outlier of the type ’level shift’ (de
Day of year of the first NDVI level shift between 1 Lacalle, 2019). The value is expected to correlate with the plowing/harvest date of
Jan. and 30 April the catch crop, which is allowed after the 16th of February (DOY 47).

doy_changepoint_182_365 The parameter corresponds to the date of the changepoint of the type ’cpt.mean’ (
Day of year of the NDVI changepoint between 1 July Killick et al., 2016). The value is expected between the sowing date of the catch
and 31 Dec. crop in late summer and the highest growth rates in late autumn.

doy_changepoint_001_120 The parameter corresponds to the date of the changepoint of the type ’cpt.mean’ (
Day of year of the NDVI changepoint between 1 Jan. Killick et al., 2016). The value is expected between the winter dormancy of the
and 30 April catch crop and the highest growth rates in early spring.

If both predictors have high values, the likelihood of a catch crop sample
Table 3
to be correctly labeled increases substantially. Despite the other metrics
Model-internal statistics for all Random Forest models including the number of
having a lower importance for the RF classifiers, they are useful for
training samples (n train), number of test samples (n test), overall accuracy
(OA), sensitivity (SENS) and specificity (SPEC).
reproducible monitoring of phenological stages and agricultural man­
agement practices at catch crop parcels.
Model n train n test OA SENS* SPEC**
The poor performance of the single-region, single-year models for
rf_BB16 700 300 0.76 0.87 0.65 catch crop detection across other spatio-temporal domains indicates an
rf_BB17 700 300 0.86 0.78 0.94 overfitting problem. This issue negatively affects the application of RF
rf_BB18 700 300 0.86 0.81 0.91
rf_LS16 700 300 0.84 0.85 0.83
classifiers across large regions. However, with the balanced OA, SENS
rf_LS17 700 300 0.88 0.91 0.85 and SPEC values of the final classifier rf_ALL shown in the cross-
rf_LS18 700 300 0.87 0.89 0.85 validation, we achieved a high robustness regarding the prediction of
rf_NW16 700 300 0.83 0.89 0.78 both classes across all spatio-temporal domains.
rf_NW17 700 300 0.80 0.85 0.75
rf_NW18 700 300 0.89 0.88 0.90
rf_NW19 700 300 0.82 0.82 0.82 4.2. Detectability of catch crop subclasses
rf_RP18 308 132 0.91 0.91 0.91
rf_ALL16 2100 900 0.78 0.82 0.74
rf_ALL17 2100 900 0.84 0.83 0.85 In the EDA of the datasets NW19_s and RP18_s, we found similar
rf_ALL18 2408 1032 0.88 0.88 0.88 temporal patterns for most subclasses of the main class catch crop. On the
rf_ALL 6608 2832 0.83 0.83 0.84 one hand, this means most subclass samples are equally predictable as
*
Proportion of catch crop test samples that were correctly labeled as catch the target class catch crop. On the other hand, this result indicates that
crop. individual seed mixes cannot be differentiated with our data and
**
Proportion of non-catch crop test samples that were correctly labeled as methods. Only seed mixes with a grass component (e.g., Lolium, Phleum,
other. Festuca, Avena) appeared to sprout later and develop more slowly than
other seed mixes. According to the PROB rates, the temporal pattern of
development and early die-off of catch crops (Deutscher Wetterdienst, the subclass grass-clover mix was likely a major source for misclassifi­
2016) especially influenced the quality of the BB16 training data set. cation within the NW19_s dataset. However, more data with subclass
Thus, under specific annual weather conditions such as heat waves or information is needed for a comprehensive analysis. In applying remote
early frost, phenological stages and growth rates become less pro­ sensing methods to differentiate catch crop subgroups, texture-based
nounced in the NDVI signal and the chosen method may work more indices on very high resolution aerial imagery could potentially pro­
weakly. vide new insights.
The developed set of descriptive features, which measured cultiva­
tion stages and phenological patterns, facilitated automated catch crop 4.3. Spatio-temporal limitations
detection. In particular, the variables rpearson_ts_sim_182_365 and
rpearson_ts_sim_1_120, which measure the correlation of the observed Our method was developed for agricultural monitoring in Germany.
time series to an averaged catch crop profile, assisted in class separation. Thus, the classifiers are limited to regions with temperate climate and

10
C. Schulz et al. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 186 (2021) 106173

non-irrigated agriculture leading to a relatively distinct seasonality of

Confusion matrix for the overall accuracies of the Random Forest models (columns) and their respective test datasets (rows). For additional information on the sensitivity and specificity and the mean values for each

rf_ALL
different crop types. Similar applications to other climate zones or other

0.67
0.84
0.84
0.78
0.83
0.87
0.76
0.82
0.85
0.88
0.90
0.91
0.88
0.74
0.83
land surfaces are not addressed in this study, but could be further
investigated in future studies.
On the temporal level, we found clear differences (i.e., phenological

rf_NW19
shifts) within the input datasets, most likely caused by year-specific

0.83
0.52
0.77
0.82
0.72
0.50
0.72
0.68
0.64
0.74
0.82
0.71
0.76
0.75
0.85
weather conditions (Fig. 5). To avoid temporal limitations, we
selected long time frames of at least two months for feature extraction.
Additionally, we incorporated input data from different years into the
rf_ALL18

training process to overcome overfitting problems. Another option to

address this issue would be phenological corrections of the time series
0.50
0.68
0.77
0.65
0.75
0.78
0.63
0.72
0.84
0.88
0.90
0.89
0.88
0.71
0.76
data based on weather data before feature extraction.
On the spatial-level, we did not find differences within the input
datasets. This led to the assumption that there are no specific regional
rf_RP18

variances of the farmers’ practices in catch cropping. Therefore, special

0.58
0.91
0.65
0.58
0.60
0.58
0.58
0.54
0.57
0.56
0.60
0.52
0.56
0.69
0.57
strategies on training data selection or phenological corrections were
not necessary in this study. Nonetheless, phenological variations caused
by different climate conditions potentially reduce the applicability on
rf_NW18

large scales. Thus, for the application for the full scale of Germany, we
0.89
0.61
0.82
0.73
0.73
0.50
0.69
0.74
0.64
0.70
0.78
0.66
0.71
0.80
0.87

would propose to integrate training data from all bio-geographical re­

gions, including the alpine mountain regions, into the model training
process.
rf_LS18

0.50
0.65
0.72
0.62
0.70
0.75
0.65
0.70
0.80
0.87
0.88
0.65
0.82
0.72
0.72

4.4. Variable importance

Although all nineteen features are useful for parcel-based moni­

rf_BB18

toring, few were highly important for predictive modelling. From the
0.50
0.79
0.80
0.70
0.78
0.83
0.70
0.77
0.86
0.82
0.88
0.64
0.83
0.72
0.77

variable importance and PROB rates, we drew three conclusions. First,

the level shift variables, which should measure the summer crop har­
vesting dates and the catch crop plowing date, had unexpectedly low
rf_ALL17

importance for the predictive models. We believe that this is caused by

0.77
0.72
0.76
0.49
0.77
0.78
0.68
0.85
0.87
0.79
0.84
0.76
0.83
0.82
0.61

the chosen time frame (beginning on the 1st of July), which does not
fully comprise the summer crop harvest time frame. In addition, we
assume that many time series have too few observations for a reliable
calculation of these metrics. Therefore, level shifts were often unable to
rf_NW17

be calculated or wrongly calculated. Secondly, the implementation of

0.47
0.71
0.75
0.64
0.69
0.77
0.80
0.75
0.63
0.74
0.70
0.55
0.67
0.66
0.69

the two correlation variables, which measure Pearson’s r to an average

NDVI profile, were unexpectedly helpful. They served as a good proxy
for the separation of the two classes in many input datasets, leading to a
rf_LS17

high mean variable importance. However, a reduction of the model

0.58
0.78
0.68
0.75
0.50
0.75
0.77
0.67
0.81
0.88
0.69
0.80
0.75
0.84
0.84

input features to these two parameters may be misleading. All features

with mean variable importances higher than 25% in the training data
(see Fig. 6) are needed for consistent performance across different
rf_BB17

spatio-temporal domains. For instance, in the dataset BB16, where the

0.52
0.83
0.76
0.70
0.86
0.86
0.72
0.81
0.74
0.80
0.79
0.60
0.75
0.71
0.76

average temporal pattern of the catch crop parcels was quite unspecific,
the r Pearson metrics performed comparably low for the prediction (see
Fig. A.4) but other features counterbalanced this. Thirdly, we found that
rf_ALL16

features that cover the spring time are important for accurate catch crop
0.63
0.75
0.69
0.76
0.69
0.83
0.83
0.78
0.78
0.83
0.66
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.77

prediction. However, administrative control timeframes for subsidy

payments currently end in December and thus all the information on
decision-making must be provided at an early stage. Alternative detec­
rf_NW16

tion models solely trained for the first half of catch crop cultivation
0.82
0.79
0.80
0.67
0.79
0.70
0.76
0.48
0.83
0.83
0.72
0.80
0.80
0.69
0.76

could potentially support these administrative constraints. However, the

administrative deadlines for CAP monitoring could be reversely adapted
to the remote sensing-based monitoring time frame.
rf_LS16

0.48
0.84
0.81
0.71
0.78
0.82
0.70
0.76
0.82
0.80
0.81
0.68
0.79
0.70
0.76

4.5. Predictive model improvements

model, we refer to Table A.3.

For further application of the proposed method, five aspects of the

training and validation process of the models could be improved.
rf_BB16
Model

0.58
0.48
0.41
0.49
0.76
0.49
0.40
0.55
0.49
0.49
0.35
0.44
0.55
0.45
0.38

(a) Using S2 data, we developed an easy and reproducible approach

with a short processing time. However, we are also limited to
optical, mono-sensor information with a temporal resolution of
Data-set
Table 4

ALL16

ALL17

ALL18
NW16

NW17

NW18

NW19
RP18
BB16

BB17

BB18
LS16

LS17

LS18

approximately 5 days and potentially large data gaps in winter­

ALL

time due to cloudy weather. To expand the number of

11
C. Schulz et al. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 186 (2021) 106173

Fig. 6. Variable importance across all models (left) and the model rf_ALL (right).

Fig. 7. Out-Of-Bag probability rates for the prediction of the target class catch crop in the main class datasets calculated with the model rf_ALL. Left: Values for catch
crop samples in Brandenburg (BB16/17/18), Lower Saxony (LS16/17/18), North Rhine-Westphalia (NW16/17/18/19), and Rhineland-Palatinate (RP18). Right:
Example of values calculated for catch crop and non-catch crop parcels in the dataset RP18. High values > 0.5 indicate catch cropping.

observations and ensure a consistent temporal coverage, we
could add NDVI time series data from the Landsat 8 sensor or
Radar Vegetation Index (RVI) (Kim et al., 2012; Pipia et al., 2019)
time series from the Sentinel-1 sensor to the set of input data. As
can be seen in Fig. 10, all three sources show distinctive temporal
patterns for catch cropping, but there are also sensor-specific
biases in pattern strengths and temporal progress. Thus, the set
of predictors would need to be adapted for each sensor or the
multi-sensor data would need to be harmonized. The Harmonized
Landsat Sentinel-2 surface reflectance dataset (Claverie et al.,
2018) used in Thieme et al. (2020) would be a good alternative to
the used data if available in 10 m spatial resolution.
(b) Our study area comprises samples with similar climatic condi­
tions from the Northern Lowlands and Central Uplands of Ger­
many. However, on the country-scale, climatic variations may
reduce the models’ applicability. Thus, the integration of
elevation and climate information to the set of predictors could
increase the RF classifiers’ accuracy significantly.
(c) We expect that the classifier performs more robust to new data if
equal training samples from all years would be integrated into
training. In the cross-validation, the model RF_ALL performs
better for test samples in the year 2018 and worse for the years
2016, 2017 and 2019. This maybe is caused by the imbalanced
number of available training datasets for each year. For the pre­
diction of new data this could lead to a problem of overfitting to
specific weather (i.e., phenological) conditions alike the year
2018.
(d) We believe that weather data could largely explain the spatio-
temporal variations found in this study. For instance, an
extremely hot September and first frosts in mid-November in
2016 led to a weak growth and early die-off of the catch crops
(Deutscher Wetterdienst, 2016). In comparison, the mild weather

12
C. Schulz et al.
Fig. 10. Comparison of the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) from Sentinel-2 and Landsat 8 and the Radar Vegetation Index (RVI) from Sentinel-1
based on the LS18 main class dataset. Each plot is subdivided into the classes catch crop and non-catch crop with 100 samples for each class. Sources: Google
Earth Engine Landsat 8 Collection 1 Tier 1 8-Day NDVI Composite dataset (Gorelick et al., 2017). JKI Sentinel-1 Gamma0 backscatter time series data archive (Julius
Kühn Institute, 2020).
conditions with high rain sums in the years 2017 and 2018 had a
positive influence on the catch crop development. However, the
integration of up-to-date weather or drought data into the models
is challenging and further analysis on pattern-process relation­
ships needs to be conducted.
(e) The quality of the developed monitoring metrics often remains
unclear. Thus, a great benefit for the alternating feature engi­
neering and validation process would be the provision of precise
documentation on agricultural management events (e.g., har­
vesting, sowing, and plowing) and phenology stages (e.g., first
sprout shooting, maximum soil coverage, and start of winter
dormancy). Such on-site measurements are urgently needed for
further improving machine learning-based methods with remote
sensing time series.
13
Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 186 (2021) 106173
Fig. 8. Out-Of-Bag probability rates
for the prediction of the target class
catch crop in the two subclass datasets
calculated with the model rf_ALL.
Left: Values for all samples from the
NW19_s dataset subdivided into ten
catch crop subclasses. Right: Values
for all samples from the RP18_s data­
set subdivided into five catch crop
subclasses (red) and eight non-catch
crop subclasses (blue). (For interpre­
tation of the references to colour in
this figure legend, the reader is
referred to the web version of this
article.)
5. Conclusions
We developed an effective and easily reproducible machine learning-
based method for parcel-level winter catch crop monitoring and detec­
tion. The implementation of the algorithms into the timeStamp software
prototype brings a major contribution to the control of subsidized par­
cels in Germany under CAP CC guidelines. With the extraction of nine­
teen cultivation-specific features from S2 NDVI time series, our
predictive models reached overall accuracies of up to 90% for test
datasets under optimal (i.e., mild and sunny) weather conditions. This
high detection rate was possible because of a generalizable and unique
temporal pattern for catch cropping which was found across the time
series datasets of four years and four federal states in Germany.
Despite its full-scale, automated applicability, the presented moni­
toring method also has disadvantages compared to the conventional on-
C. Schulz et al.
site controlling approach. First, different catch crop seed mixes cannot
be distinguished with the used data. Secondly, if the phenological con­
ditions strongly vary from the average catch crop pattern, due to region-
specific or year-specific weather conditions, the predictive models
become less precise. The assimilation of weather, elevation or multi-
sensor satellite data could overcome limitations on the spatial, tempo­
ral and class-level. More precise temporal in-situ documentation of dates
with agricultural events (e.g., harvesting, tillage, and plowing) and
specific phenology stages (e.g., sprouting, growth, winter dormancy)
could greatly improve the feature engineering process and model
validation.
Nonetheless, within the framework of a cost-efficient and area-wide
monitoring of CAP Greening measures, our approach can greatly support
the authorities in their controlling obligation. During the early stage of
monitoring, the authorities can select critical parcels which most require
on-site controls by interpreting the set of temporal features. Further­
more, the classifier automatically detects catch cropping parcels and
evaluates the likelihood for each parcel that the cultivation was suc­
cessful within the fixed timeframe. Thus, our winter catch cropping
monitoring approach is a reliable alternative to on-site controls.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Christian Schulz: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software,
Writing - original draft, Formal analysis, Validation. Ann-Kathrin
Holtgrave: Writing - review & editing. Birgit Kleinschmit: Conceptu­
alization, Methodology, Supervision, Funding acquisition.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This article is a contribution of timeStamp (Entwicklung eines
automatisierten Hinweissystems für die Kontrolle von Agrarförderflä­
chen) funded by the German Ministry for Economics and Technology
(BMWi) and managed by the German Aerospace Centre (DLR) (grant
number: 50EW1704C). The authors are grateful for the support and
feedback by all partners and authorities involved in this project. We
thank Dr. Daniel Spengler (German Research Centre for Geosciences)
and Dr. Holger Lilienthal (†) (Julius Kühn Institute) for providing us pre-
processed Sentinel-2 and -1 data products. Dr. Charlotte Tönshof
(Thuenen Institute), Dr. Andrea Ackermann (Thuenen Institute), M.Sc.
Niklas Keck (RLP AgroScience GmbH) and Dipl.-Geogr. Gregor Sintrup
(RLP AgroScience GmbH) kindly provided the parcel data collected in
this project. M.Sc. Stenka Vulova kindly gave helpful feedback for the
manuscript and revised our English. The authors would also like to
thank the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and
suggestions during the revision process of this article.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.compag.2021.106173.
References
D’Andrimont, R., Taymans, M., Lemoine, G., Ceglar, A., Yordanov, M., van der Velde, M.,
2020. Detecting flowering phenology in oil seed rape parcels with Sentinel-1 and -2
time series. Remote Sens. Environ. 239, 111660 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rse.2020.111660.
D’Andrimont, R., Lemoine, G., Van der Velde, M., 2018. Targeted Grassland Monitoring
at Parcel Level Using Sentinels, Street-Level Images and Field Observations. Remote
Sens. 10 (8), 1300. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10081300.
14
Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 186 (2021) 106173
Ban, Y., Yousif, O., 2016. Change Detection Techniques: A Review. In: Ban, Y. (Ed.),
Multitemporal Remote Sensing – Methods and Applications. Springer, Cham,
pp. 19–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47037-5_2.
Bargiel, D., 2017. A new method for crop classification combining time series of radar
images and crop phenology information. Remote Sens. Environ. 198, 369–383.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.06.022.
Beck, H., Zimmermann, N., McVicar, T., Vergopolan, N., Berg, A., Wood, E., 2018.
Present and future Köppen-Geiger climate classification maps at 1-km resolution.
Sci. Data 5, 180214. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2018.214.
Blanco-Canqui, H., Shaver, T., Lindquist, J., Shapiro, C., Elmore, R., Francis, C.,
Herger, G., 2015. Cover Crops and Ecosystem Services: Insights from Studies in
Temperate Soils. Agron. J. 107 (6), 2449–2474. https://doi.org/10.2134/
agronj15.0086.
Breiman, L., 2001. Random Forests. Mach. Learn. 45 (1), 5–32 https://doi.org/10.1023.
Bucklin, D., Basille, M., 2019. rpostgis: Linking R with a PostGIS Spatial Database. The R
Journal 10 (1), 251–268 https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2018-025.
Claverie, M., Ju, J., Masek, J., Dungan, J., Vermote, E., Roger, J.-C., Skakun, S.,
Justice, C., 2018. The harmonized Landsat and Sentinel-2 surface reflectance data
set. Remote Sens. Environ. 219, 145–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rse.2018.09.002.
Conway, J., Eddelbuettel, D., Nishiyama, T., Prayaga, S., Tiffin, N., 2017. RPostgreSQL: R
Interface to the ’PostgreSQL’ Database System. R Package Version 0.6-2. https://CR
AN.R-project.org/package=RPostgreSQL.
Copernicus Programme, 2020. Copernicus Land Monitoring Service High Resolution
Layer Crop Types (HRL-Crop Types). https://land.copernicus.eu/news/consultation-
process-now-open-for-hrl-crop-type.
Dabney, S., Delgado, J., Reeves, D., 2001. Using winter cover crops to improve soil and
water quality. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 32, 1221–1250. https://doi.org/
10.1081/CSS-100104110.
de Lacalle, J., 2019. tsoutliers: Detection of Outliers in Time Series. R Package Version
0.6-8. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=tsoutliers.
Delgado, J., Dillon, M., Sparks, R., Essah, S., 2007. A decade of advances in cover crops.
J. Soil Water Conserv. 62 (5), 110A–117A.
Destatis, 2019. Statistisches Bundesamt: Landwirtschaftlich genutzte Fläche in
Deutschland nach Bundesländern in den Jahren 2017 bis 2019 (in 1.000 Hektar).
206265.
Deutscher Wetterdienst, 2016. Deutscher Wetterdienst zum Agrarwetter im Herbst 2016.
Trockener Herbst brachte Zyklus von Winterkulturen und Bäumen durcheinander.
(“The weather in Germany in autumn 2016. Warm, sunny and too dry”). Press
release from 2016-12-20. https://www.dwd.de/DE/presse/pressemitteilungen/DE/
2016/20161220_agrarwetter_herbst.pdf.
Devos, W., Fasbender, D., Lemoine, G., Loudjani, P., Milenov, P., Wirnhardt, C., 2017.
Discussion document on the introduction of monitoring to substitute OTSC. JRC
Technical Reports. https://doi.org/10.2760/258531.
Devos, W., Lemoine, G., Milenov, P., Fasbender, D., 2018a. Technical guidance on the
decision to go for substitution of OTSC by monitoring. JRC Technical Reports.
https://doi.org/10.2760/693101.
Devos, W., Lemoine, G., Milenov, P., Fasbender, D., Loudjani, P., Wirnhardt, C., Sima, A.,
Griffiths, P., 2018b. Second discussion document on the introduction of monitoring
to substitute OTSC: rules for processing applications in 2018–2019. JRC Technical
Reports. https://doi.org/10.2760/344612.
European Commission, 2020. Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions. EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. Bringing nature back
into our lives. COM/2020/380 final.
European Space Agency, 2018. Sen4CAP - Sentinels for Agricultural Monitoring. http://e
sa-sen4cap.org.
Förster, S., Kaden, K., Förster, M., Itzerott, S., 2012. Crop type mapping using spectral-
temporal profiles and phenological information. Comput. Electr. Agric. 89, 30–40.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2012.07.015.
GADM, 2020. GADM country data (version 3.6). https://gadm.org.
Garioud, A., Valero, S., Giordano, S., Mallet, C., 2020. On the joint exploitation of optical
and SAR satellite imagery for grassland monitoring. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote
Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLIII-B3-2020-591-20
20.
German Research Centre for Geosciences, 2020. GFZ Time Series System for Sentinel-2.
https://gitext.gfz-potsdam.de/gts2.
German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture, 2015. Umsetzung der EU-Agrarreform
in Deutschland. https://www.bmel.de.
Gerstmann, H., Doktor, D., Gläßer, C., Möller, M., 2016. PHASE: A geostatistical model
for the Kriging-based spatial prediction of crop phenology using public phenological
and climatological observations. Comput. Electr. Agric. 127, 726–738. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.compag.2016.07.032.
Gorelick, N., Hancher, M., Dixon, M., Ilyushchenko, S., Thau, D., Moore, R., 2017.
Google Earth Engine: Planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone. Remote Sens.
Environ. 202, 18–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.06.031.
Griffiths, P., Nendel, C., Pickert, J., Hostert, P., 2019a. Towards national-scale
characterization of grassland use intensity from integrated Sentinel-2 and Landsat
time series. Remote Sens. Environ. 238 (1), 111124 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rse.2019.03.017.
Griffiths, P., Nendel, C., Hostert, P., 2019b. Intra-annual reflectance composites from
Sentinel-2 and Landsat for national-scale crop and land cover mapping. Remote Sens.
Environ. 220, 111124 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.03.017.
Hargrove, W. (Ed.), 1991. Cover Crops for Clean Water. Soil and Water Conservation
Society, Ankeny, Iowa.
C. Schulz et al.
Heupel, K., Spengler, D., Itzerott, S., 2019. A Progressive Crop-Type Classification Using
Multitemporal Remote Sensing Data and Phenological Information. PFG 86, 53–69.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41064-018-0050-7.
Hively, W., Lang, M., McCarty, G., Keppler, J., Sadeghi, A., McConnell, L., 2009. Using
satellite remote sensing to estimate winter cover crop nutrient uptake efficiency.
J. Soil Water Conserv. 64 (5), 303–313. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.64.5.303.
Hively, W., Duiker, S., McCarty, G., Prabhakara, K., 2015. Remote sensing to monitor
cover crop adoption in southeastern Pennsylvania. Soil Water Conserv. 70 (6),
340–352. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.70.6.340.
Holtgrave, A.-K., Röder, N., Ackermann, A., Erasmi, S., Kleinschmit, B., 2020. Comparing
Sentinel-1 and -2 Data and Indices for Agricultural Land Use Monitoring. Remote
Sens. 12 (18), 2919. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12182919.
Immitzer, M., Vuolo, F., Atzberger, C., 2016. First Experience with Sentinel-2 Data for
Crop and Tree Species Classifications in Central Europe. Remote Sens. 8 (3), 166.
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs8030166.
Julius Kühn Institute, 2020. Sentinel-1 time series archive. Level-1 GRD Gamma0
calibrated backscatter products. WCS web map service. https://flf.julius-kuehn.
de/webdienste/webdienste-des-flf.html.
Killick, R., Haynes, K., Eckley, I., Fearnhead, P., Lee, J., 2016. changepoint: Methods for
Changepoint Detection. R Package Version 2.2.2. https://CRAN.R-project.org/p
ackage=changepoint.
Kim, Y., Jackson, T., Bindlish, R., Lee, H., Hong, S., 2012. Radar vegetation index for
estimating the vegetation water content of rice and soybean. IEEE Geosci. Remote
Sens. Lett. 9 (4), 564–568. https://doi.org/10.1109/LGRS.2011.2174772.
Kolecka, N., Ginzler, C., Pazur, R., Price, B., Verburg, P., 2018. Regional Scale Mapping
of Grassland Mowing Frequency with Sentinel-2 Time Series. Remote Sens. 10 (8),
1221. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10081221.
Kuenzer, C., Dech, S., Wagner, W., 2015. Remote Sensing Time Series Revealing Land
Surface Dynamics: Status Quo and the Pathway Ahead. In: Kuenzer, C., Dech, S.,
Wagner, W. (Eds.), Remote Sensing Time Series – Revealing Land Surface Dynamics.
Springer, Cham, pp. 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15967-6_1.
Kuhn, M., Wing, J., Weston, S., Williams, A., Keefer, C., Engelhardt, A., Cooper, T.,
Mayer, Z., Kenkel, B., R Core Team, Benesty, M., Lescarbeau, R., Ziem, A., Scrucca,
L., Tang, Y., Candan, C., Hunt, T., 2020. caret: Classification and Regression
Training. R Package Version 6.0-84. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=caret.
Kussul, N., Mykola, L., Shelestov, A., Skakun, S., 2018. Crop inventory at regional scale in
Ukraine: Developing in season and end of season crop maps with multi-temporal
optical and SAR satellite imagery. Eur. J. Remote Sens. 51, 627–636. https://doi.
org/10.1080/22797254.2018.1454265.
Liaw, A., Wiener, M., 2018. randomForest: Breiman and Cutler’s Random Forests for
Classification and Regression. R Package Version 4.6-14. https://CRAN.R-project.or
g/package=randomForest.
Magdoff, F., Van Es, H., 2009. Building soils for better crops, sustainable soil
management. Sustainable Agriculture Publications. ISBN 978-1-888626-13-1.
Meisinger, J., Hargrove, W., Mikkelsen, R., Williams, J., Benson, V., 1991. Effects of
cover crops on groundwater quality. In: Cover crops for clean water. Proc.
conference, Jackson, 1991, 57–68.
Misra, G., Cawkwell, F., Wingler, A., 2020. Status of Phenological Research Using
Sentinel-2 Data: A Review. Remote Sens. 12 (17), 2760. https://doi.org/10.3390/
rs12172760.
OSCAR, 2016. Optimising Subsidiary Crop Applications in Rotations (OSCAR): A
collaborative European research project to develop more sustainable systems of
conservation agriculture and increase the diversity of cover crops and living
mulches. Research Project. 2012–2016 https://web5.wzw.tum.de/oscar/.
Ottosen, T., Lommen, S., Skjøth, C., 2019. Remote sensing of cropping practice in
Northern Italy using time-series from Sentinel-2. Comput. Electron. Agric. 157,
232–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2018.12.031.
Peredo, J., Wayman, C., Whong, B., Thieme, A., Kline, L., Yadav, S., Eder, B., Lenske, V.,
Portillo, D., McCartney, S., Fitz, J., Oddo, P., Keppler, J., Hively, D., Bolten, J.,
McCarty, G., Lyon, A., 2019. Utilizing Landsat and Sentinel-2 to remotely monitor
and evaluate the performance of winter cover crops throughout Maryland. The
International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial
Information Sciences, Volume XLII-3/W11, 2020. PECORA 21/ISRSE 38 Joint
Meeting, 6–11 October 2019, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. https://doi.org/10.5194/is
prs-archives-XLII-3-W11-125-2020.
Pipia, L., Muñoz-Marí, J., Amin, E., Belda, S., Camps-Valls, G., Verrelst, J., 2019. Fusing
optical and SAR time series for LAI gap filling with multioutput Gaussian processes.
Remote Sens. Environ. 235, 111452 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.111452.
15
Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 186 (2021) 106173
Preidl, S., Lange, M., Doktor, D., 2020. Introducing APiC for regionalised land cover
mapping on the national scale using Sentinel-2A imagery. Remote Sens. Environ.
240, 111673 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2020.111673.
RStudio Team, 2020. RStudio: Integrated Development for R. Software Version 3.6. htt
p://www.rstudio.com.
Schulz, C., Keck, N., Kleinschmit, B., 2019. Reduction of On-site Controls of Catch Crop
Fields with Sentinel-2 and Sentinel-1 Phenological Reference Profiles. In: Conference
Proceedings, MultiTemp Shanghai 2019. https://doi.org/10.1109/Multi-
Temp.2019.8866901.
Sitokonstantinou, V., Papoutsis, I., Kontoes, C., Arnal, A., Andrés, A., Zurbano, J., 2018.
Scalable Parcel-Based Crop Identification Scheme Using Sentinel-2 Data Time-Series
for the Monitoring of the Common Agricultural Policy. Remote Sens. 10 (6), 911.
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10060911.
Solano-Correa, Y., Bovolo, F., Bruzzone, L., Fernandez-Prieto, D., 2020. A Method for the
Analysis of Small Crop Fields in Sentinel-2 Dense Time Series. IEEE Trans. Geosci.
Remote Sens. 58, 2150–2164. https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2019.2953652.
Ssymank, A., 1994. Neue Anforderungen im europäischen Naturschutz: Das
Schutzgebietssystem Natura 2000 und die FFH-Richtlinie der EU. Natur und
Landschaft 69 (9), 395–406.
Tamm, T., Zalite, K., Voormansik, K., Talgre, L., 2016. Relating Sentinel-1
Interferometric Coherence to Mowing Events on Grasslands. Remote Sens. 8 (10),
802. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs8100802.
Taravat, A., Wagner, M., Oppelt, N., 2019. Automatic Grassland Cutting Status Detection
in the Context of Spatiotemporal Sentinel-1 Imagery Analysis and Artificial Neural
Networks. Remote Sens. 11 (6), 71. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11060711.
Thieme, A., Yadav, S., Oddo, P., Fitz, J., McCartney, S., King, L., Keppler, J., McCarty, G.,
Hively, W., 2020. Using NASA Earth observations and Google Earth Engine to map
winter cover crop conservation performance in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
Remote Sens. Environ. 248 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2020.111943.
Thorup-Kristensen, K., 1994. The effect of nitrogen catch crop species on the nitrogen
nutrition of succeeding crops. Fertilizer Research 37, 227–234. https://doi.org/
10.1007/BF00748941.
Thünen Institute, 2021. Development of an automated support system to monitor
agricultural funding sites (timeStamp). Research project funded by the German
Ministry for Economics and Technology (BMWi). Lead: Institute of Rural Studies,
Thünen Institute. FKZ: 50EW1704. http://timestamp.lup-umwelt.de/.
Tukey, J., 1977. Exploratory Data Analysis. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-0-387-32833-1_136.
Van Tricht, K., Gobin, A., Gilliams, S., Piccard, I., 2018. Synergistic Use of Radar
Sentinel-1 and Optical Sentinel-2 Imagery for Crop Mapping: A Case Study for
Belgium. Remote Sens. 10 (10), 1642. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10101642.
Valero, S., Morin, D., Inglada, J., Sepulcre, G., Arias, M., Hagolle, O., Dedieu, G.,
Bontemps, S., Defourny, P., Koetz, B., 2016. Production of a Dynamic Cropland Mask
by Processing Remote Sensing Image Series at High Temporal and Spatial
Resolutions. Remote Sens. 8 (1), 55. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs8010055.
Veloso, A., Mermoz, S., Bouvet, A., Le Toan, T., Planells, M., Dejoux, J., Ceschia, E.,
2017. Understanding the temporal behavior of crops using Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2-
like data for agricultural applications. Remote Sens. Environ. 199, 415–426. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.07.015.
Verbesselt, J., Hyndman, R., Newnham, G., Culvenor, D., 2010. Detecting trend and
seasonal changes in satellite image time series. Remote Sens. Environ. 114 (1),
106–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2009.08.014.
Verger, A., Kandasamy, S., Baret, F., 2016. Temporal Techniques in Remote Sensing of
Global Vegetation. In: Ban, Y. (Ed.), Multitemporal Remote Sensing – Methods and
Applications. Springer, Cham, pp. 217–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
47037-5_11.
Wilke, B., Snapp, S., 2008. Winter cover crops for local ecosystems: linking plant traits
and ecosystem function. J. Sci. Food Agric. 88, 551–557. https://doi.org/10.1002/
jsfa.3149.
Zambrano-Bigiarini, M., 2020. hydroGOF: Goodness-of-Fit Functions for Comparison of
Simulated and Observed Hydrological Time Series. R Package Version 0.4-0. https
://CRAN.R-project.org/package=hydroGOF.
Zeileis, A., Grothendieck, G., Ryan, J., Ulrich, J., Andrews, F., 2020. zoo: S3
Infrastructure for Regular and Irregular Time Series (Z’s Ordered Observations). R
Package Version 1.8-8. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=zoo.
Żuk-Gołaszewska, K., Wanic, M., Orzech, K., 2019. The role of catch crops in field plant
production – A review. J. Elem. 24 (2), 575–587. https://doi.org/10.5601/
jelem.2018.23.3.1662.