We introduce PLANTEUR, a benchmark for crop-type mapping from satellite images in the French overseas territories. Building on the PASTIS design, PLANTEUR provides georeferenced and aligned Sentinel-2, Sentinel-1, and Landsat-8 sequences with parcel-derived labels spanning six tropical regions and an 8-class label space. We define both a standard test split and a leave-one-island-out protocol to measure cross-territory generalization, and evaluate fully supervised models, linear probes, and fine-tuned foundation models. The benchmark code and data are open source and available on GitHub and Hugging Face.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: PLANTEUR pixels illustrated on maps of the six tropical regions included in the dataset. Note that the whitespace represents pixels that do not include labels, whether due to being non-agricultural (e.g., mountains) or labels not existing in the data source.
Figure 2: PLANTEUR class distribution, in terms of number of windows containing that class, number of parcels for that class, and number of pixels labeled as that class. The background class represents non-agriculture, and the void class consists of underrepresented tropical classes.
Figure 3: Example parcels for each scored crop class in PLANTEUR. Each chip is a Sentinel-2 RGB composite from a single acquisition date, with the ground-truth mask showing just that class’s pixels.
Island
test windows
test pixels
Background %
Trivial mIoU
Réunion
172
2,805,239
71.02%
8.88
Guadeloupe
69
1,130,352
85.99%
10.75
Martinique
58
950,272
84.20%
10.52
Guyane
80
1,301,548
78.83%
9.85
Mayotte
64
1,043,953
99.45%
12.43
Table 1: Per-island composition of the 443-window test split, broken down by number of windows and pixels. Note that Saint-Martin has just six windows in the train set and does not contribute to the test set.
Family
Model
mIoU
acc.
Linear probe
Released embeddings
AEF
27.68
89.50
Tessera v1.1
32.78
89.84
Tessera v1
33.13
89.77
Frozen encoders
AnySat
28.79
86.59
Galileo
34.71
89.91
Presto
16.25
80.15
Table 2: Results on the PLANTEUR 443-window test split. Best within each block in bold, best overall highlighted.
Figure 4: MACs vs. mIoU on PLANTEUR standard test set, separated into two plots for linear probe and supervised methods. The reported MACs represent compute cost of forward pass, so released embedding products wouldn’t bear this cost. The dotted line marks AEF, a closed-weight embedding product for which encoder MACs are unavailable.
Model
S2
S1
S1+S2
S2+LS
S1+S2+LS
OlmoEarth v1.3 (64d)
35.17
24.64
34.95
34.90
35.01
OlmoEarth v1.3 (128d)
36.88
24.45
37.04
36.68
36.02
OlmoEarth v1.3 (768d)
38.94
26.91
39.39
38.50
39.03
OlmoEarth v1.2 FT
40.82
32.41
41.62
40.42
41.01
Table 3: OlmoEarth varying inputs on the 443-window PLANTEUR test split. Best input combination per row in bold.
Figure 5: Temporal sequence-length ablation for OlmoEarth v1.3 linear probes and OlmoEarth v1.2 fine-tuning: mIoU-8 as a function of the number of monthly mosaics provided as input. Performance improves with a larger sequence length, though the rate of increase is largest between a sequence length of one and three for all methods. OlmoEarth v1.3 probes in this ablation use a fixed learning rate of 0.1 rather than a validation-selected sweep.
Model
w=4
w=8
w=16
w=32
w=64
OlmoEarth v1.3 (64d)
33.21
34.51
35.17
36.82
37.56
OlmoEarth v1.3 (128d)
34.69
37.59
36.88
38.20
37.10
OlmoEarth v1.3 (768d)
35.92
36.16
38.94
40.20
39.36
OlmoEarth v1.2 FT
35.82
38.67
39.81
40.65
40.82
Table 4: Spatial-context ablation on the 443-window PLANTEUR test split. Best window size per row in bold.
Model
baseline
balanced
OlmoEarth v1.3 (64d)
35.17
36.74
OlmoEarth v1.3 (128d)
36.88
39.13
OlmoEarth v1.3 (768d)
38.94
40.91
Tessera v2
34.20
37.42
AEF
27.68
28.71
U-TAE
35.82
33.98
Table 5: Baseline vs. balanced, where the balanced setup reduces the number of Background samples to equal the total number of crop samples, evaluated on PLANTEUR 443-window test split. Best within each block in bold, best overall highlighted. The difference in performance between columns is not large, suggesting that the task difficulty is beyond dealing with class imbalance.
Model
Réunion
Guadeloupe
Martinique
Guyane
Mayotte
mean
OlmoEarth v1.3 (64d)
22.70
30.38
29.93
14.12
12.49
21.92
OlmoEarth v1.3 (128d)
26.43
31.16
35.16
15.50
12.42
24.13
OlmoEarth v1.3 (768d)
13.84
33.90
32.69
13.95
12.48
21.37
Tessera v2
11.50
28.79
29.57
12.26
12.43
18.91
AEF
9.88
23.08
20.77
12.75
12.42
15.78
U-TAE
22.34
28.43
30.25
14.52
12.52
21.61
Table 6: PLANTEUR leave-one-island-out (LOIO) results. Mean is across the 5 folds. Best within each block in bold, best overall highlighted.
Model
X=10
X=25
X=100
X=1000
OlmoEarth v1.3 (64d)
20.57
21.06
25.23
27.67
OlmoEarth v1.3 (128d)
21.80
21.50
26.96
28.88
OlmoEarth v1.3 (768d)
20.75
20.96
27.57
29.66
Tessera v2
18.61
18.28
23.51
27.23
AEF
16.16
17.63
21.93
24.25
U-TAE
5.84
8.14
14.49
22.59
Table 7: Few-shot on PLANTEUR labels only: train on X labeled PLANTEUR pixels per class, evaluate on the 443-window test split. Best within each block in bold, best overall highlighted.
Figure 6: PLANTEUR few-shot transfer: mIoU-8 against X labeled PLANTEUR pixels per class, on top of PASTIS.
Model
Regime
baseline
inv
invsqrt
focal γ=2
invsqrt+focal
U-TAE
supervised
35.82
28.82
36.85
36.51
36.68
TSViT
supervised
36.33
27.55
35.76
36.45
34.48
OlmoEarth v1.2
fine-tune
40.82
33.16
41.10
40.21
39.34
OlmoEarth v1.3 (768d)
linear probe
38.94
34.93
41.43
38.61
40.49
Table 8: Class-weighting and focal-loss ablations on PLANTEUR (443-window test split), mIoU-8. Best per row in bold.
Model
Arm
X=10
X=25
X=100
X=1000
OlmoEarth v1.3 (64d)
all PASTIS
24.64
26.61
27.73
27.77
OlmoEarth v1.3 (64d)
balanced
24.51
23.31
26.39
27.78
OlmoEarth v1.3 (128d)
all PASTIS
27.57
26.98
28.58
29.29
OlmoEarth v1.3 (128d)
balanced
27.26
24.98
27.74
29.18
OlmoEarth v1.3 (768d)
all PASTIS
27.54
26.04
29.30
28.92
OlmoEarth v1.3 (768d)
balanced
24.55
23.31
29.00
30.04
Table 9: Unseen-region transfer: PASTIS plus X labeled PLANTEUR pixels per class. all PASTIS keeps the full PASTIS training set; balanced draws X pixels of every class from both sources. Best within each block in bold, best overall highlighted.
Model
mIoU-8
trop-4
acc.
OlmoEarth v1.3 (64d)
28.28
22.53
89.05
OlmoEarth v1.3 (128d)
31.93
30.86
87.53
OlmoEarth v1.3 (768d)
35.82
33.99
90.73
OlmoEarth v1.2 FT
37.83
35.65
90.13
Table 10: Unseen transfer: encoders fine-tuned on PASTIS, then linear-probed on the PLANTEUR 443-window test split. The table shows mIoU-8 and mIoU over just the four tropical classes absent from PASTIS (Sugarcane, Banana, Pineapple, Tropical tuber; trop-4). Each cell is the best of an 8-point learning-rate sweep selected on validation.
Model
Inputs
Réunion
Guadeloupe
Martinique
Guyane
Mayotte
mean
OlmoEarth v1.3 (64d)
S2
22.70
30.38
29.93
14.12
12.49
21.92
OlmoEarth v1.3 (64d)
S1
15.08
21.39
22.31
11.86
12.41
16.61
OlmoEarth v1.3 (64d)
S1+S2
20.72
30.10
29.45
14.00
12.43
21.34
OlmoEarth v1.3 (64d)
S2+LS
22.98
30.03
28.92
13.46
12.61
21.60
OlmoEarth v1.3 (64d)
S1+S2+LS
21.27
29.99
29.10
14.03
12.41
21.36
OlmoEarth v1.3 (128d)
S2
26.43
31.16
35.16
15.50
12.42
24.13
Table 11: Leave-one-island-out (LOIO) input ablations for OlmoEarth. Best mIoU-8 within each read-out block in bold, best overall highlighted, except for the Mayotte column which is not meaningful.
Probe
w
Réunion
Guadeloupe
Martinique
Guyane
Mayotte
mean
OlmoEarth v1.3 (64d)
4
20.57
29.29
26.78
11.70
12.40
20.15
OlmoEarth v1.3 (64d)
8
20.42
29.12
29.65
13.48
12.52
21.04
OlmoEarth v1.3 (64d)
16
22.70
30.38
29.93
14.12
12.49
21.92
OlmoEarth v1.3 (128d)
4
20.25
29.48
28.10
13.43
12.42
20.74
OlmoEarth v1.3 (128d)
8
19.63
30.83
32.30
13.35
12.53
21.73
OlmoEarth v1.3 (128d)
16
26.43
31.16
35.16
15.50
12.42
24.13
Table 12: Spatial-context ablation under LOIO protocol. Mean mIoU-8 is across the 5 folds. Best mean per section in bold.
Model
S2
S1
S1+S2
S2+LS
S1+S2+LS
OlmoEarth v1.3 (64d)
90.55
84.64
90.21
90.47
90.26
OlmoEarth v1.3 (128d)
90.46
85.76
90.47
90.30
90.61
OlmoEarth v1.3 (768d)
90.12
86.66
90.34
89.97
90.20
OlmoEarth v1.2 FT
91.80
89.49
91.63
91.50
91.40
Table 13: OlmoEarth varying inputs on the 443-window PLANTEUR test split, overall pixel accuracy (%). Same runs as Table 3 . Best input combination per row in bold.
Model
w=4
w=8
w=16
w=32
w=64
OlmoEarth v1.3 (64d)
89.85
90.24
90.55
90.16
89.55
OlmoEarth v1.3 (128d)
90.28
90.36
90.46
90.13
90.06
OlmoEarth v1.3 (768d)
88.89
91.01
90.12
91.18
91.09
OlmoEarth v1.2 FT
89.52
90.32
90.67
91.39
91.80
Table 14: Spatial-context ablation on the 443-window PLANTEUR test split, overall pixel accuracy (%). Same runs as Table 4 . Best window size per row in bold.
Model
baseline
balanced
OlmoEarth v1.3 (64d)
90.55
89.02
OlmoEarth v1.3 (128d)
90.46
90.18
OlmoEarth v1.3 (768d)
90.12
90.20
Tessera v2
90.26
89.69
AEF
89.50
87.74
U-TAE
90.62
89.86
Table 15: Baseline vs. balanced, overall pixel accuracy (%), where balanced reduces the number of Background samples to equal the total number of crop samples, evaluated on the PLANTEUR 443-window test split. Same runs as Table 5 . Best within each block in bold, best overall highlighted.
Model
X=10
X=25
X=100
X=1000
OlmoEarth v1.3 (64d)
69.16
58.42
68.51
70.59
OlmoEarth v1.3 (128d)
69.99
56.91
69.60
70.82
OlmoEarth v1.3 (768d)
57.76
51.71
66.04
68.33
Tessera v2
59.06
47.76
62.58
71.89
AEF
49.09
49.14
64.53
72.56
U-TAE
26.70
35.54
50.95
60.12
Table 16: Few-shot on PLANTEUR labels only, overall pixel accuracy (%): train on X labeled PLANTEUR pixels per class with no PASTIS data, evaluate on the 443-window test split. Same runs as Table 7 . Best within each block in bold, best overall highlighted.
Model
Réunion
Guadeloupe
Martinique
Guyane
Mayotte
mean
OlmoEarth v1.3 (64d)
83.84
87.92
87.85
83.31
99.35
88.45
OlmoEarth v1.3 (128d)
84.98
87.28
88.56
84.48
99.39
88.94
OlmoEarth v1.3 (768d)
75.03
88.73
89.12
82.75
99.25
86.98
Tessera v2
75.18
87.00
88.23
82.97
99.26
86.53
AEF
74.29
85.89
85.28
80.20
99.37
85.01
U-TAE
83.66
87.51
88.35
83.71
97.78
88.20
Table 17: PLANTEUR leave-one-island-out (LOIO), Sentinel-2 inputs: pixel accuracy (%). Mean is across the 5 folds. Best within each block in bold, best overall highlighted.
Figure 7: Qualitative PLANTEUR examples, with each row showing a Sentinel-2 mosaic, corresponding ground truth labels, and predicted mask from linear probing AEF, Tessera v2, and OlmoEarth v1.3.
Figure 8: Confusion matrices for methods trained on the imbalanced and balanced train set and evaluated on the 443-window PLANTEUR test split. Rows are ground-truth classes, columns predictions, row-normalized; darker cells carry more mass. Off-diagonal mass sits almost entirely in the Background column.
Geospatial foundation models pretrained on satellite imagery promise broad generalization across remote sensing tasks and regions, but their geographic transferability has not been systematically tested, especially in agriculture applications. This paper presents a controlled benchmark that evaluates three models, Prithvi, SpectralGPT, and SatMAE, on multi-temporal crop segmentation and change detection across four U.S. states, Iowa, North Carolina, California, and Minnesota. By assigning each train, validation, and test split to a separate region, we measure how well each model transfers to land it has not seen. All three degrade sharply under regional distribution shift, predicting only the most common crops while missing rare ones. We further find that fitting these models to a shared input format affects each one differently, which complicates direct architectural comparison. These results expose key limitations of current geospatial foundation models for agriculture and point to region aware evaluation as a necessary standard.
Zhuocheng Shang, Sanmay Das, Ahmed Eldawy
University of California, Riverside · Riverside, USA
Large-scale maps of field boundaries are essential for agricultural monitoring tasks. Existing deep learning approaches for satellite-based field mapping are sensitive to illumination, spatial scale, and changes in geographic location. We conduct the first systematic evaluation of segmentation and geospatial foundation models (GFMs) for global field boundary delineation using the Fields of The World (FTW) benchmark. We evaluate 18 models under unified experimental settings, showing that a U-Net semantic segmentation model outperforms instance-based and GFM alternatives on a suite of performance and deployment metrics. We propose a new segmentation approach that combines a U-Net backbone, composite loss functions, and targeted data augmentations to enhance performance and robustness under real-world conditions. Our model achieves a 76% IoU and 47% object-F1 on FTW, an increase of 6% and 9% over the previous baseline. Our approach provides a practical framework for reliable, scalable, and reproducible field boundary delineation across model design, training, and inference. We release all models and model-derived field boundary datasets for five countries.
Operational crop mapping requires models that generalise across years, resolve fine-grained crop taxonomies, and distinguish cropland from surrounding landscapes. However, existing crop mapping datasets enable evaluation of these requirements only in isolation. We therefore introduce SwissCrop25, a national-scale crop mapping benchmark dataset spanning seven growing seasons (2019-2025). SwissCrop25 combines Sentinel-2 time series, daily temperature observations, a fine-grained 73 crop taxonomy including grassland management types, and 5 explicit non-crop land cover classes. To evaluate realistic deployment conditions, we define a leave-one-year-out protocol with joint cropland delineation and crop classification for benchmarking representative crop mapping architectures. Evaluating U-TAE (convolutional temporal-attention model), TSViT (transformer-based spatio-temporal model), and Galileo (EO foundation model) reveals differences between architectures hidden by conventional benchmarks. In this setting, domain-specific models outperform Galileo, with TSViT achieving the best overall performance and a 12 pp macro-mIoU advantage over U-TAE. SwissCrop25 also exposes substantial interannual distribution shifts and shows that incorporating temperature-derived phenological information improves robustness. Finally, in-season evaluation reveals a trade-off between models, with U-TAE performing better early in the season and TSViT gaining an advantage later through improved rare-class discrimination. SwissCrop25 provides a challenging testbed for evaluating crop mapping systems under realistic operational conditions and is publicly released at https://huggingface.co/datasets/EOA-team/SwissCrop25 .
Thomas Lauber, Mehmet Ozgur Turkoglu, Sélène Ledain +1
Earth Observation of Agroecosystems Team, Agroscope, Switzerland