AlphaEarth embeddings for cropland mapping in Maine, USA; 93.7% accuracy without fine-tuning

AlphaEarth embeddings for cropland mapping in Maine, USA; 93.7% accuracy without fine-tuning

From Foundation Embeddings to Cropland Maps:Label Efficiency, Temporal Transferability and Independent Human Validation

From Foundation Embeddings to Cropland Maps: Label Efficiency, Temporal Transferability and Independent Human Validation

Abstract. Geospatial foundation models provide reusable representations of satellite imagery that can support downstream mapping with limited task-specific modelling. We evaluate whether annual AlphaEarth embeddings support binary cultivated-versus-non-cultivated mapping in Maine, USA, using 192 spatially separated image patches and labels derived from the USDA Cropland Data Layer (CDL). Without fine-tuning the foundation model, a lightweight classifier reaches approximately 93.7% overall accuracy and 90.8% balanced accuracy on held-out patches. Logistic regression is within 0.3 percentage points of a gradient-boosted ensemble, while a nearest-class-centroid rule, which uses labelled class centroids but no iterative parameter fitting, reaches 90.2%. A balanced sample of 60,000 labelled pixels is within approximately 1.3 percentage points of the full pool of 8.6 million pixels; because pixels are spatially autocorrelated, this result concerns pixel-sample efficiency rather than 60,000 independent annotation sites. In a same-region temporal-transfer experiment, classifiers trained in one year remain accurate across 2018 to 2023. Against a blind, two-interpreter consensus at 385 randomly sampled points in one contiguous 2023 block, the AlphaEarth-plus-random-forest map agrees at 95.3% ( κ = 0.82 \kappa=0.82 ), compared with 91.7% for the CDL ( κ = 0.72 \kappa=0.72 ; exact two-sided McNemar p = 0.0161 p=0.0161 ). This local result is consistent with partial smoothing of CDL label noise, but it does not establish statewide correction of the reference product. On the same points, the difference from a fine-tuned TerraMind segmentation model is not statistically significant (95.3% versus 93.5%; p = 0.14 p=0.14 ), and the experiment is not a controlled comparison of computational cost. These results support frozen geospatial embeddings as a low-compute candidate for regional cropland mapping, subject to the limits of a single-state study, a 30 m-derived training reference, and a one-block human validation.

Keywords: geospatial foundation models; AlphaEarth embeddings; cropland classification; Cropland Data Layer; label efficiency; random forest; photo-interpretation validation

Producing land-use and land-cover information used to be slow and expensive. It relied on the manual interpretation of imagery and on task-specific models that had to be built almost from scratch for every new problem, and the biggest obstacle was data: training such models needed very large, carefully labelled datasets, and high-quality labels are scarce because they are costly to collect [ 7 ] . Satellite missions such as Sentinel and Landsat have been both an asset and a challenge in this respect. They provide a continuous stream of observations from which a dataset can be built, but the volume of that data is too large to use directly, so a geospatial expert has to spend considerable effort cleaning, compositing and engineering features before the data becomes usable [ 11 ] . Compositing, the usual way of dealing with clouds, also discards part of the temporal phenological signal that matters most for crops.

Geospatial foundation models have begun to change this picture. Instead of engineering features by hand, these models learn the features themselves, mostly through self-supervised pre-training, and a single pre-trained model can then serve several downstream tasks. They divide into two broad ways of working. One route provides a pre-trained backbone that the user still has to fine-tune for each task, as with Prithvi [ 13 ] or TerraMind [ 14 ] . The other route runs the model once, at the developer’s side, and releases its output directly as embeddings : fixed-length per-pixel vectors that behave, in geospatial terms, like bands. AlphaEarth [ 7 ] and TESSERA [ 11 ] follow this second route, releasing 64-dimensional and 128-dimensional annual embeddings respectively. For every 10 ​ m × 10 ​ m 10,\mathrm{m}\times 10,\mathrm{m} pixel the user obtains one such vector, which compactly summarises a whole year of multimodal observations at that location, and which can be fed straight into a light classifier with no heavy model to train or run.

This paper is concerned with that second family, and specifically with what it delivers for cropland mapping. Four related terms are used here in a specific sense. A crop is a cultivated plant grown for food, fibre or fodder. Cropland is land used to grow such crops, comprising arable land together with land under permanent crops [ 12 ] . Cultivated land is the broader category of land worked for agriculture; in the USDA Cropland Data Layer it is represented by a dedicated Cultivated Layer, defined operationally as land cropped in at least two of the previous five years [ 4 ] . Non-cultivated land is everything outside that category, including forest, water, developed, barren and similar non-agricultural cover. The task addressed here is the binary separation of cultivated from non-cultivated land, and, as explained in Section 2 , we derive our own binary mask from the annual 254-class Cropland layer rather than using the ready-made Cultivated Layer.

The premise that precomputed embeddings plus a simple classifier are sufficient has so far been tested mostly by the model authors themselves. TESSERA reports that its embeddings, with only a handful of labels, match or outperform task-specific models across five very different tasks and without any fine-tuning [ 11 ] . Independent evaluations are still few. The clearest we found applies the same AlphaEarth and TESSERA embeddings to riverine habitat and geomorphic classes with ordinary supervised classifiers, and reports a high potential for the approach [ 3 ] . Closer to our own task, a recent study evaluates AlphaEarth embeddings for irrigated-cropland mapping in China and the United States, training random forests directly on the 64-dimensional vectors, and reports overall accuracies around 95 per cent with stable transfer between years but weaker generalisation across regions [ 29 ] . Independent evidence has accumulated quickly since. Zvonkov et al. [31] map cropland in Togo from precomputed Presto and AlphaEarth embeddings with a light random forest, reporting overall accuracies of 0.897 0.897 and 0.859 0.859 respectively against a national test set. AlphaEarth is the weaker of their two embeddings there, level with the GLAD product ( 0.859 0.859 ) and below WorldCover ( 0.880 0.880 ), though the two embeddings are not evaluated on equal terms: their Presto embeddings span the 2019 to 2020 season of the reference labels, whereas the earliest AlphaEarth year available to them was 2021. Ma et al. [19] benchmark AlphaEarth embeddings across three agricultural downstream tasks in the United States, crop-yield prediction, tillage mapping and cover-crop mapping, and find them competitive with purpose-built remote-sensing models when trained on local data, while reporting limited spatial transferability, low interpretability and limited time sensitivity. Lisaius et al. [18] apply the same paradigm to crop-type classification under smallholder conditions in the groundnut basin of Senegal. Two further studies examine the embedding space itself rather than a mapping task: Benavides-Martínez et al. [2] characterise the functional roles of individual dimensions, and Rahman et al. [26] the geometry of the embedding manifold over the conterminous United States. We return to both in Section 4 . The agricultural literature otherwise remains dominated by the fine-tuning and dedicated-training route: AgriFM is pre-trained on more than 25 million multi-source samples and outperforms general-purpose foundation models on crop mapping and field-boundary delineation [ 17 ] , while fine-tuning studies find that large models pull ahead of traditional machine learning mainly when labels are scarce [ 5 ] . Both of those routes still have to train or fine-tune a heavy model and attach a task head, which is precisely the cost the embedding paradigm avoids. A broader benchmark of eight satellite foundation models is a useful warning in this context: it finds performance strongly task-dependent, the quality of the pre-training data more important than its sheer size, and the step from a ViT-Base to a ViT-Large backbone worth less than one per cent of accuracy [ 27 ] . A larger model is not necessarily a better one, which is part of why a simple classifier on a good embedding merits serious consideration.

The gap we address is therefore not whether embeddings can map cropland at all, which Zvonkov et al. [31] have now demonstrated, but how far such a map can be trusted. The existing evaluations are reported as accuracy against a single reference product, on one region and one year, and none of them examines the structure of the embedding space that produces the result, tests whether a model fitted in one year still holds in another, or asks whether the reference product itself is right where the map and the reference disagree. Whether a lightweight classifier on these embeddings is competitive for binary cultivated mapping, how much labelled data it needs, which properties of the embedding space decide the outcome, and how the resulting map compares with independent human judgement rather than with the labels it was trained on, have not been examined together for a single task.

In this paper we address that question over the state of Maine, in the United States, using the annual AlphaEarth embeddings as the only input and labels derived from the USDA Cropland Data Layer. We report four things. First, a statistical characterisation of the embedding space itself, on the unit hypersphere where the vectors lie, which establishes which analyses are legitimate and gives a classifier-free read on how hard the task is (Section 4 ). Second, the accuracy of a graded set of light classifiers placed on the frozen embeddings, from a single linear model to gradient-boosted ensembles (Section 5 ). Third, how much labelled data the approach actually needs, and how well a single-year model transfers across the years 2018 to 2023 (Sections 6 and 7 ). Fourth, a validation that steps outside the reference layer altogether, comparing the model, the Cropland Data Layer and a fine-tuned segmentation model against independent human photo-interpretation on a common set of reference points (Section 8 ). Throughout, we keep the classifier deliberately simple, so that the embedding, and not the model placed on top of it, is the object of study.

Summarising, before entering into the details of our work, we want to emphasise the boundaries we are considering. “Label efficiency” refers to the number of CDL-labelled pixels used by the downstream classifier, not to the number of independent fields or manually annotated sites. “Transferability” refers to temporal reuse across years within the same Maine sampling frame; geographic transfer to other regions is not tested. The human-reference comparison is point-based and local to one contiguous block in 2023.

2 Data and Study Area

2.1 Maine as a study area

The experimental work is carried out over the state of Maine, in the north-eastern United States. Two practical constraints fixed this choice. The first is the ground truth: our labels are taken from the USDA Cropland Data Layer, which is produced only for the United States, so the study area had to lie within it. The second is the availability of the embeddings. AlphaEarth provides annual embeddings globally, but we also wanted an area covered by the other precomputed-embedding model we considered, TESSERA, whose coverage spans a more limited set of years and locations, so that the same datas