Dear Destiny,

What do you mean exactly by a 'poor', 'moderate' or a 'good sugarcane'? I'm not sure what those qualitative terms represent, and in particular whether anything can be measured in relation to these qualifiers.

Specifically, do you have firm, convincing evidence that various grades of sugarcane would result in changes in spectral reflectance? Do you have field data, for instance, that demonstrates such a link? If so, then you can sharpen your question and enquire whether such effects, measurable in the field, would still be distinguishable at the nominal 'Top of the Atmosphere (ToA)', which is what the satellite observes.

If you are concerned about the yield of the sugarcane at the end of the growing seasons, then please note that the instantaneous value of measurements at any one time during that season are very poor indicators of the final yield, because many events can still affect the crop until it is harvested.

However, the integral (sum) of vegetation variables over the growing season is a better indicator of the final yield.

Although many people still use NDVI, you should really abandon that approach: it has been obsolete for decades... This index is sensitive to a large number of perturbing factors, which make its interpretation doubtful. Much better approaches have been developed for many years already, in particular the Fraction of Absorbed Photosynthetically Active Radiation (FAPAR), which is the result of a physically-based computation of the radiation balance for the plant canopy. You'll find lots of information, publications and even data sets here:

http://fapar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/Home.php

Good luck! Michel.

by poor, moderate and good sugarcane I mean sugarcane that will give us Low yield/ poor, not very high/moderate and high yield/good. I do not have field data which I can link remote sensing data with. Thanks for your input. I really appreciate it.

-1to +1

Sorry. I mistake that