Figure 4 represents the Land Surface Temperature (LST) at five distinct stages in the study area, utilizing Google Earth Engine. The LST values, a key indicator of temperature variations across the landscape, are depicted during crucial wheat growth stages, including germination, flowering, tillering, heading, and maturity. The color variations on the map represent the intensity of temperature at each stage, offering insights into the thermal dynamics of the study area throughout the wheat cultivation cycle. This visual depiction aids in understanding the spatial distribution of temperature patterns, contributing valuable information for the subsequent assessment of wheat crop suitability.
Figure 5 illustrates the soil parameters of the study area, focusing on four distinct key parameters critical for agricultural analysis. The visualization provides insights into the spatial distribution of these parameters across the landscape. The specific parameters may include but are not limited to soil pH, drainage characteristics, electrical conductivity, and soil type. By visually representing these soil attributes, Figure 5 aids in comprehending the heterogeneity of soil conditions within the study area. This visual insight is integral for understanding the diverse environmental factors that influence wheat crop suitability, further contributing to the overall interpretation of the research findings.
Figure 6 displays the integrated soil-based map of the study area, generated through a weighted overlay method. This method combines various soil parameters, assigning weights based on their respective significance in influencing wheat crop suitability. The map provides a spatial representation of the integrated soil parameters, offering a comprehensive view of the areas with optimal conditions for wheat cultivation. The weighted overlay approach considers the varying contributions of individual soil factors, such as pH, drainage, electrical conductivity, and soil type, resulting in a nuanced assessment of the overall soil-based suitability across the landscape. The visual output in Figure 6 serves as a valuable tool for decision-makers and researchers, aiding in the identification of regions with favorable soil conditions for sustainable wheat production.
Figure 7 presents temperature-based suitability maps for the study area, capturing variations in temperature that influence wheat crop growth. These maps depict spatial patterns of temperature ranges, providing crucial information for identifying areas with optimal conditions for wheat cultivation. In Figure 8, an integrated map is showcased, combining both soil-based and temperature-based suitability maps. This comprehensive approach considers the interplay of environmental factors, including soil parameters and temperature variations, to generate a unified suitability map. The integration of these critical components enhances the precision of identifying regions highly suitable for wheat cultivation, offering a more holistic perspective for agricultural planning. Together, Figures 7 and 8 contribute valuable insights into the diverse factors influencing wheat crop suitability, providing a visual representation that aids in decision-making and resource allocation for sustainable agricultural practices in the study area.
The study focused on assessing wheat crop suitability based on temperature ranges and soil characteristics, employing a classification system that categorized areas into less suitable, highly suitable, moderately suitable, and unsuitable classes.
Notably, urban areas were identified as heat islands due to anthropogenic activities, emitting gases such as CO2, SO2, and particulate matter that trap heat. These elevated temperatures, exceeding the optimal range for wheat growth, adversely affect wheat plants near urban zones, resulting in shorter stature and heightened stress. Conversely, areas near water bodies were observed as less suitable for wheat plants due to lower temperatures, causing delayed growth. Spatially, sites within urban and water body areas were identified as highly and moderately suitable for wheat cultivation, falling within the optimal temperature range for wheat growth. The Electrical Conductivity (EC) map indicated elevated values near urban areas, potentially attributed to various household materials like iron, magnesium, cobalt, and calcium, though their impact on wheat crop growth was considered minimal.
Within the studied landscape, the land use and land cover (LULC) classification results reveal distinctive characteristics of highly suitable zones for wheat cultivation. Among the identified land cover classes, the Crop category stands out prominently, covering an expansive 14,699 square kilometers. This vast expanse signifies areas highly conducive to agricultural activities, particularly wheat cultivation. The distribution of highly suitable zones constitutes 28% of the total land, showcasing regions where optimal conditions align with the temperature-based and soil-based suitability maps. These zones emerge as pivotal areas for wheat cultivation, providing a fertile environment for robust crop growth. The prevalence of such highly suitable zones underscores the agricultural significance of the studied districts, emphasizing the potential for optimizing wheat production in these specific areas. The detailed classification results contribute valuable insights for targeted agricultural planning and resource allocation, aiming to harness the full potential of the identified highly suitable zones for sustainable wheat cultivation.
The study also explored soil characteristics, highlighting the significance of soil type, pH, and drainage. Clayish soil was identified as the most conducive for wheat crop growth due to its high water-holding capacity, while silty and loamy soil types were considered suitable to a lesser extent. Areas under sandy soil were deemed unsuitable due to high water seepage, requiring frequent irrigation. The influence of soil drainage was considered less significant in the overall flat terrain of the study area. In terms of classification methods, the study employed classification and regression tree (CART), demonstrating its superiority over other available methods with a reliability of 82% during ground truthing. To enhance accuracy, the study meticulously identified and removed areas with vegetation types other than wheat, such as grass for cattle grazing. Despite the research's accuracy, a notable concern arises from the lack of awareness among local farmers regarding the application of the latest techniques. This knowledge gap is identified as a contributing factor to the overall decline in production within the study site. Addressing this awareness deficit among farmers is crucial for optimizing the benefits of advanced techniques and fostering sustainable agricultural practices in the region.
This research, while providing valuable insights into wheat crop suitability mapping in Sheikhupura, Gujranwala, Hafizabad, and Nankana Sahib districts, is subject to certain limitations that warrant consideration. The reliance on limited ground truthing data poses a potential constraint on the accuracy of the classification results, introducing uncertainties in the suitability maps. Additionally, the study's temperature-based suitability mapping simplifies the intricate relationship between temperature ranges and wheat growth, potentially overlooking the multifaceted environmental factors influencing crop suitability. The focus on key soil parameters, such as pH, drainage, and soil type, excludes other potentially impactful soil characteristics, necessitating a more comprehensive soil analysis. The research does not explicitly account for climate change effects, overlooking potential shifts in climate patterns that could significantly impact wheat crop suitability over time. The study also highlights a lack of awareness among local farmers regarding the latest techniques, posing a practical implementation challenge and limiting the potential benefits for the agricultural community. Moreover, the exclusion of socioeconomic factors and assumptions of homogeneity within land cover classes further shape the context of these limitations. Lastly, temporal constraints and the reliance on data from specific time periods may not fully capture seasonal variations and changing agricultural practices, potentially affecting the study's applicability over time. Recognizing and addressing these limitations is crucial for refining the research outcomes and guiding future studies in this agricultural context.
[1] F. Karimi, S. Sultana, A. Shirzadi Babakan, and D. Royall, “Land Suitability Evaluation for Organic Agriculture of Wheat Using GIS and Multicriteria Analysis,” Pap. Appl. Geogr., vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 326–342, Jul. 2018, doi: 10.1080/23754931.2018.1448715.
[2] S. Batool, S. A. Mahmood, and M. Muhammad Ali, “ASSESSMENT OF LAND SUITABILITY AND CAPABILITY BY INTEGRATING REMOTE SENSING AND GIS FOR AGRICULTURE IN POTWAR REGION PAKISTAN,” Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci., vol. XLVIII-M-1–2023, pp. 409–415, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.5194/ISPRS-ARCHIVES-XLVIII-M-1-2023-409-2023.
[3] R. M. A. Khan, S. A. Mahmood, Y. Miao, and M. Ur Rasheed, “Python Driven Pathways for Wheat Cultivation Incorporating Physico-Climatic Parameters of Growth,” J. Agric. Sci. Technol, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 893–909, 2023, doi: 10.22034/jast.25.4.9.
[4] M. Dedeoğlu and O. Dengiz, “Generating of land suitability index for wheat with hybrid system aproach using AHP and GIS,” Comput. Electron. Agric., vol. 167, p. 105062, Dec. 2019, doi: 10.1016/J.COMPAG.2019.105062.
[5] N. Khubaib et al., “Predicting areas suitable for wheat and maize cultivation under future climate change scenarios in Pakistan,” Clim. Res., vol. 83, pp. 15–25, Feb. 2021, doi: 10.3354/CR01631.
[6] D. B. Debalke, D. A. Mengistu, and T. E. Admas, “Physical land suitability evaluation of rainfed crop production of wheat, barley, and teff in Arsi zone of Ethiopia,” Arab. J. Geosci. 2023 163, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 1–16, Feb. 2023, doi: 10.1007/S12517-023-11271-X.
[7] “Flash flood susceptibility modeling for drainage basins of Dir Lower Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa: a comparative analysis of morphometric ranking and El-Shamy’s approach.” Accessed: Nov. 23, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie/11528/2573062/Flash-flood-susceptibility-modeling-for-drainage-basins-of-Dir-Lower/10.1117/12.2573062.full?SSO=1
[8] A. Karimi, P. Mohammad, A. García-Martínez, D. Moreno-Rangel, D. Gachkar, and S. Gachkar, “New developments and future challenges in reducing and controlling heat island effect in urban areas,” Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2022 2510, vol. 25, no. 10, pp. 10485–10531, Jul. 2022, doi: 10.1007/S10668-022-02530-0.
[9] G. Dadhich, P. R. Patel, and M. H. Kalubarme, “Agriculture land suitability evaluation for wheat cultivation using geomatics for Patan District, India,” Int. J. Agric. Resour. Gov. Ecol., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 91–108, 2017, doi: 10.1504/IJARGE.2017.084038.
[10] S. S. Hussain and M. Mudasser, “Prospects for wheat production under changing climate in mountain areas of Pakistan – An econometric analysis,” Agric. Syst., vol. 94, no. 2, pp. 494–501, May 2007, doi: 10.1016/J.AGSY.2006.12.001.
[11] “Evaluating Future Climate Projections in Upper Indus Basin through GFDL-ESM2M Model | International Journal of Innovations in Science & Technology.” Accessed: Nov. 23, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://journal.50sea.com/index.php/IJIST/article/view/553/1079
[12] N. Naz and H. Rasheed, “Modeling the Land Suitability using GIS and AHP for Cotton Cultivation in Punjab, Pakistan,” Pakistan J. Sci. Ind. Res. Ser. A Phys. Sci., vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 96–108, Jun. 2016, doi: 10.52763/PJSIR.PHYS.SCI.59.2.2016.96.108.
[13] S. Roholla Mousavi, F. Sarmadian, Z. Alijani, and A. Taati, “Land suitability evaluation for irrigating wheat by Geopedological approach and Geographic Information System: A case study of Qazvin plain, Iran,” Eurasian J. Soil Sci., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 275–284, Jul. 2017, doi: 10.18393/EJSS.297251.
[14] M. Waleed, M. Sajjad, M. S. Shazil, M. Tariq, and M. T. Alam, “Machine learning-based spatial-temporal assessment and change transition analysis of wetlands: An application of Google Earth Engine in Sylhet, Bangladesh (1985–2022),” Ecol. Inform., vol. 75, p. 102075, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.1016/J.ECOINF.2023.102075.
[15] R. E. Kennedy et al., “Implementation of the LandTrendr Algorithm on Google Earth Engine,” Remote Sens. 2018, Vol. 10, Page 691, vol. 10, no. 5, p. 691, May 2018, doi: 10.3390/RS10050691.
[16] M. Imran, K. Sumra, N. Abbas, and I. Majeed, “Spatial distribution and opportunity mapping: Applicability of evidence-based policy implications in Punjab using remote sensing and global products,” Sustain. Cities Soc., vol. 50, p. 101652, Oct. 2019, doi: 10.1016/J.SCS.2019.101652.
[17] I. Mazhar, A. Hamid, and S. Afzal, “Groundwater quality assessment and human health risks in Gujranwala District, Pakistan,” Environ. Earth Sci., vol. 78, no. 22, pp. 1–12, Nov. 2019, doi: 10.1007/S12665-019-8644-Y/METRICS.
[18] A. Tariq, S. Siddiqui, A. Sharifi, and S. H. I. A. Shah, “Impact of spatio-temporal land surface temperature on cropping pattern and land use and land cover changes using satellite imagery, Hafizabad District, Punjab, Province of Pakistan,” Arab. J. Geosci. 2022 1511, vol. 15, no. 11, pp. 1–16, May 2022, doi: 10.1007/S12517-022-10238-8.
[19] D. Bhatt, S. Maskey, M. S. Babel, S. Uhlenbrook, and K. C. Prasad, “Climate trends and impacts on crop production in the Koshi River basin of Nepal,” Reg. Environ. Chang., vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 1291–1301, Dec. 2014, doi: 10.1007/S10113-013-0576-6/FIGURES/5.
[20] S. Ara, M. A. U. J. Alif, and K. M. A. Islam, “Impact of Tourism on LULC and LST in a Coastal Island of Bangladesh: A Geospatial Approach on St. Martin’s Island of Bay of Bengal,” J. Indian Soc. Remote Sens., vol. 49, no. 10, pp. 2329–2345, Oct. 2021, doi: 10.1007/S12524-021-01389-4/METRICS.
[21] W. Zhao and S. B. Duan, “Reconstruction of daytime land surface temperatures under cloud-covered conditions using integrated MODIS/Terra land products and MSG geostationary satellite data,” Remote Sens. Environ., vol. 247, p. 111931, Sep. 2020, doi: 10.1016/J.RSE.2020.111931.
[22] J. Więckowski and W. Sałabun, “Sensitivity analysis approaches in multi-criteria decision analysis: A systematic review,” Appl. Soft Comput., vol. 148, p. 110915, Nov. 2023, doi: 10.1016/J.ASOC.2023.110915.
[23] D. Yadav, H. Dem, J. Paulo Costa, S. A. Gallo, and J. Maheut, “Multi-Criteria Analysis for the Evaluation of Urban Freight Logistics Solutions: A Systematic Literature Review,” Math. 2023, Vol. 11, Page 4089, vol. 11, no. 19, p. 4089, Sep. 2023, doi: 10.3390/MATH11194089.
[24] E. A. Njoku, P. E. Akpan, A. E. Effiong, and I. O. Babatunde, “The effects of station density in geostatistical prediction of air temperatures in Sweden: A comparison of two interpolation techniques,” Resour. Environ. Sustain., vol. 11, p. 100092, Mar. 2023, doi: 10.1016/J.RESENV.2022.100092.
[25] Z. Ijaz, C. Zhao, N. Ijaz, Z. ur Rehman, and A. Ijaz, “Development and optimization of geotechnical soil maps using various geostatistical and spatial interpolation techniques: a comprehensive study,” Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ., vol. 82, no. 6, pp. 1–21, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.1007/S10064-023-03244-X/METRICS.