When Coconut Trees Die: Spatio-Temporal Land-Use Dynamics on Grand-Lahou Island, Côte d’Ivoire ()
1. Introduction
In Côte d’Ivoire, coconut (Cocos nucifera L.) is an important crop used for food, cosmetics, traditional medicine, and handicrafts [1]. It is predominantly cultivated along the coast and represents the primary source of income for over twenty thousand households in the Ivorian coastal region [2]. The Grand-Lahou area, located in southern Côte d’Ivoire, has long been a major production basin, supplying both local consumption and industrial chains for coconut oil and co-products.
However, over recent decades, this agricultural and landscape heritage has undergone significant transformations. Coconut plantations are simultaneously affected by aging, land pressures from expanding food crop cultivation, and the increasing impact of devastating diseases, particularly Lethal Yellowing Disease (LYD). This disease is caused by a phytoplasma microorganism transmitted by insect vectors [3] [4]. In Côte d’Ivoire, Nedotepa curta (Cicadellidae) and Proutista fritillaris (Derbidae) are suspected to be the vectors of lethal yellowing in the Grand-Lahou department [4]. According to [5], over 70% of coconut trees in the Grand-Lahou department have been destroyed by LYD.
To date, no chemical control method exists for LYD [6]. Current management strategies rely on identifying infected trees based on visible symptoms, followed by immediate removal [7] [8]. A major limitation of this approach is its dependence on symptom expression, which often appears several months after initial infection, leaving a critical window during which vectors can extensively spread the pathogen.
Developing early detection tools for LYD remains a major challenge for both agronomists and researchers. Studying the spatio-temporal dynamics of coconut plantations is therefore essential to understand land-use changes in affected areas. Recent advances in remote sensing and geographic information systems provide powerful tools for monitoring these transformations across different temporal and spatial scales [8] [9]. Such approaches allow not only the identification of areas experiencing disease regression or expansion but also the evaluation of underlying environmental and anthropogenic factors. Up-to-date data on plantation dynamics are crucial for guiding management policies and implementing an effective early warning system. This study aims to analyze the spatio-temporal dynamics of coconut plantations on Grand-Lahou Island from 1990 to 2025 using satellite imagery and field data.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
Grand-Lahou Island is located about 20 km from the town of Grand-Lahou and covers an area of 15,000 ha [6]. It lies between latitudes 5˚6'0''N and 5˚13'12''N and longitudes 5˚18'0''W and 5˚3'0''W (Figure 1). The island is characterized by forest cover and the presence of three major water bodies the Bandama River, the Tagba Lagoon, and the Atlantic Ocean which has earned it the name “City of Three Waters.” The area experiences an equatorial climate with two rainy seasons and two dry seasons [6] [10].
Figure 1. Location of Grand-Lahou Island.
2.2. Data Collection
In this study, four LANDSAT satellite images from 1990, 2000, 2016, and 2025, with a spatial resolution of 30 m (Table 1), were used. All images were acquired during the dry season, as this period corresponds to the lowest levels of cloudiness and cloud cover throughout the year. The LANDSAT data were freely obtained through download from the USGS Earth Explorer platform (http://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/).
Table 1. Characteristics of the satellite images used.
Acquisition Dates |
Sensor |
Spatial Resolution |
30/12/1990 |
LANDSAT 4 TM |
30 m |
09/02/2000 |
LANDSAT 7 ETM |
30 m |
01/04/2016 |
LANDSAT 8 OLI TIRS |
30 m |
09/03/2025 |
LANDSAT 8 OLI TIRS |
|
2.3. Field Survey and Delineation of Training Samples
Color composite of the 2025 satellite image was used to identify areas with distinct color, texture, and shape, which were subsequently visited during a field verification mission. This enabled the definition of land-use types for mapping (Table 2). GPS points and plot boundaries were recorded for the mainland-use categories, including coconut, forest, food crop, and other crop.
Table 2. Description of land use categories.
Land use |
Characteristics |
Forest |
Dense vegetation characterized by tall tree species |
Food crop |
Area under annual or subsistence crops |
Coconut grove |
Coconut plantation zone (monocrop system) |
Other crop |
Cocoa and/or coffee plantations associated with shade trees. Rubber and oil palm plantations in monoculture |
Mangrove |
Flooded area composed of water-tolerant trees and shrubs |
Water |
Water body |
Bare ground |
Built-up and bare land areas |
2.4. Image Classification and Accuracy Assessment
The Maximum Likelihood classification (MLC) was employed to map land-use types [11] [12]. The maximum likelihood algorithm was selected because of its ability to exploit the statistical distributions of classes derived from the spectral signatures of pixels [11]. It models class distributions from training areas under the assumption of normality and assigns each pixel to the class with the highest probability [13] [14]. Classification was performed on the 2025 image, using 147 training plots covering 70% of the field data. Refinement and calibration produced the most accurate map. The spectral signatures from the 2025 classification served as training areas for supervised classification of the 2016, 2000, and 1990 images. Classifications were conducted in ENVI 4.7, and results were exported to QGIS 3.28 for map generation.
Map quality was assessed through cross-validation using 63 control plots excluding from training [15]. Validation was based on overall accuracy and the confusion matrix. This assessment helps to understand the sources of misclassification [9]. Additionally, model accuracy indicators including overall accuracy, Kappa coefficient, user’s accuracy, and producer’s accuracy were calculated from the confusion matrix obtained through cross-validation. This validation approach provides an unbiased estimate of the error rate when the model is applied to the entire study area [16].
2.5. Land-Use Change Analysis
Land-use change analysis was conducted using a transition matrix (in percentage) and the rate of change (in percentage) over the study period. The transition matrix highlights the conversions between land-use types between two dates and quantifies these changes [11] [17]. Annual rates of change were calculated using the standardized formula proposed by [18]:
(1)
where S1 and S2 represent the areas of the land-use type at dates t1 and t2, respectively.
3. Results
3.1. Evaluation of Map Quality
The land-use maps for 1990, 2000, 2016, and 2025 achieved overall accuracies of 83.63%, 82.27%, 79.44%, and 84.53%, respectively, with all Kappa coefficients exceeding 0.70 (Table 3). The confusion matrices generated for each date indicate high user’s accuracy values (PA > 75%) across all land-use categories (Tables 4-7). However, a notable confusion was observed between the forest class and other classes such as other crops and coconut groves across all dates. The resulting maps showed a similar magnitude of error (UA) per class, with an average difference of less than 3.5%.
Table 3. Overall accuracy and Kappa coefficient of the classified images.
Years |
1990 |
2000 |
2016 |
2025 |
Overall Accuracy (%) |
83.63 |
82.27 |
79.44 |
84.53 |
Kappa Coefficient |
0.77 |
0.76 |
0.73 |
0.79 |
Table 4. Confusion matrices and accuracy metrics for 1990 land-use map (in number of pixels).
Reference/Classified |
Other crop |
Forest |
Food crop |
Coconut grove |
Water |
Bare ground |
Mangrove |
Total |
UA |
Other crop |
18,878 |
638 |
853 |
2771 |
0 |
4 |
5 |
23,149 |
0.82 |
Forest |
1662 |
45,440 |
443 |
4972 |
0 |
5 |
1061 |
53,583 |
0.85 |
Food crop |
646 |
111 |
8644 |
820 |
0 |
298 |
137 |
10,656 |
0.81 |
Coconut grove |
2667 |
6712 |
1130 |
57,173 |
0 |
20 |
339 |
68,041 |
0.84 |
Water |
0 |
5 |
3 |
0 |
3160 |
0 |
548 |
3716 |
0.85 |
Bare ground |
3 |
2 |
278 |
16 |
0 |
2217 |
101 |
2617 |
0.85 |
Mangrove |
1 |
802 |
279 |
384 |
64 |
73 |
7398 |
9001 |
0.82 |
Total |
23,857 |
53,710 |
11,630 |
66,136 |
3224 |
2617 |
9589 |
170,763 |
|
PA |
0.79 |
0.85 |
0.74 |
0.86 |
0.98 |
0.85 |
0.77 |
|
|
Note: UA—User accuracy; PA—Producer accuracy.
Table 5. Confusion matrices and accuracy metrics for 2000 land-use map (in number of pixels).
Reference/Classified |
Other crop |
Forest |
Food crop |
Coconut grove |
Water |
Bare ground |
Mangrove |
Total |
UA |
Other crop |
20,873 |
1347 |
798 |
2093 |
5 |
1 |
6 |
25,123 |
0.83 |
Forest |
1426 |
25,774 |
149 |
6208 |
3 |
1 |
366 |
33,927 |
0.76 |
Food crop |
1182 |
198 |
17,316 |
3270 |
12 |
381 |
568 |
22,927 |
0.76 |
Coconut grove |
1948 |
4835 |
2095 |
60,786 |
1 |
119 |
503 |
70,287 |
0.86 |
Water |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2936 |
0 |
83 |
3019 |
0.97 |
Bare ground |
2 |
3 |
424 |
147 |
1 |
3896 |
180 |
4653 |
0.84 |
Mangrove |
22 |
332 |
587 |
784 |
543 |
45 |
8514 |
10,827 |
0.79 |
Total |
25,453 |
32,489 |
21,369 |
73,288 |
3501 |
4443 |
10,220 |
170,763 |
|
PA |
0.82 |
0.79 |
0.81 |
0.83 |
0.84 |
0.88 |
0.83 |
|
|
Note: UA—User accuracy; PA—Producer accuracy.
Table 6. Confusion matrices and accuracy metrics for 2016 land-use map (in number of pixels).
Reference/Classified |
Other crop |
Forest |
Food crop |
Coconut grove |
Water |
Bare ground |
Mangrove |
Cloud |
Total |
UA |
Other crop |
21,056 |
3583 |
770 |
2483 |
18 |
1 |
10 |
2 |
27,923 |
0.75 |
Forest |
3396 |
38,001 |
735 |
5462 |
1 |
6 |
415 |
4 |
48,020 |
0.79 |
Food crop |
474 |
494 |
28,024 |
2747 |
1 |
359 |
172 |
13 |
32,284 |
0.87 |
Coconut grove |
2339 |
5016 |
3065 |
36,221 |
2 |
59 |
492 |
27 |
47,221 |
0.77 |
Water |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
940 |
52 |
58 |
0 |
1053 |
0.89 |
Bare ground |
11 |
20 |
856 |
326 |
42 |
3912 |
176 |
40 |
5383 |
0.73 |
Mangrove |
4 |
306 |
47 |
263 |
106 |
326 |
6964 |
9 |
8025 |
0.87 |
Cloud |
44 |
53 |
93 |
160 |
0 |
19 |
25 |
460 |
854 |
- |
Total |
27,326 |
47,474 |
33,590 |
47,662 |
1110 |
4734 |
8312 |
555 |
170,763 |
|
PA |
0.77 |
0.80 |
0.83 |
0.76 |
0.85 |
0.83 |
0.84 |
- |
|
|
Note: UA—User accuracy; PA—Producer accuracy.
Table 7. Confusion matrices and accuracy metrics for 2025 land-use map (in number of pixels).
Reference/Classified |
Other crop |
Forest |
Food crop |
Coconut grove |
Water |
Bare ground |
Mangrove |
Total |
UA |
Other crop |
39,399 |
4937 |
1653 |
1767 |
9 |
221 |
72 |
48,058 |
0.82 |
Forest |
4989 |
33,490 |
1028 |
555 |
17 |
62 |
498 |
40,639 |
0.82 |
Food crop |
1514 |
1232 |
53,226 |
2694 |
0 |
1341 |
29 |
60,036 |
0.89 |
Coconut grove |
765 |
341 |
854 |
7070 |
0 |
211 |
0 |
9241 |
0.77 |
Water |
48 |
45 |
4 |
0 |
994 |
14 |
50 |
1155 |
0.86 |
Bare ground |
172 |
102 |
413 |
163 |
2 |
5603 |
1 |
6456 |
0.87 |
Mangrove |
116 |
382 |
74 |
1 |
36 |
1 |
4568 |
5178 |
0.88 |
Total |
47,003 |
40,529 |
57,252 |
12,250 |
1058 |
7453 |
5218 |
170,763 |
|
PA |
0.84 |
0.83 |
0.93 |
0.58 |
0.94 |
0.75 |
0.88 |
|
|
Note: UA—User accuracy; PA—Producer accuracy.
3.2. Land-Use of Grand-Lahou Island from 1990 to 2025
The land-use maps from 1990 to 2025 generally show a decline in coconut groves and forests in favor of agricultural crops (Figure 2). The area of coconut groves initially increased from 1990 to 2000 before drastically decreasing through 2025. They covered 39.8% (6123.6 ha) in 1990, 42.9% (6595.9 ha) in 2000, 27.9% (4289.5 ha) in 2016, and only 5.4% (831.6 ha) in 2025 (Figure 3). Food crops, which accounted for only 6.2% of the study area in 1990, expanded to 12.5% in 2000, 19.6% in 2016, and 35.1% in 2025. Similarly, other perennial crops increased from 13.5% in 1990 to 14.9% in 2000, 16% in 2016, and 28.1% in 2025.
Figure 2. Land-use maps of Grand-Lahou Island in 1990, 2000, 2016, and 2025.
Figure 3. Area of land-use types.
3.3. Evolution of Land-Use Class Areas from 1990 to 2025
During 1990-2000, forests and water bodies declined annually by 3.9% and 0.5%, respectively (Figure 4). In contrast, coconut groves, other perennial crops, bare soil, mangroves, and food crops increased at annual rates of 0.7%, 0.9%, 6.9%, 1.3%, and 10%, respectively. The period 2000-2016 appeared favorable for forests, which recorded an annual reforestation rate of 2.8%. Food crops, other perennial crops, and bare soil also expanded, with annual gains of 3.5%, 0.5%, and 0.4%, respectively. Over the same period, coconut groves, mangroves, and water bodies declined, with annual losses of 2.1%, 1.1%, and 4.1%, respectively. Between 2016 and 2025, the regression of coconut groves continued at a rate of 8.9% per year, while mangroves also kept decreasing. Conversely, food crops and other perennial crops expanded significantly, with annual increases of 8.4% and 8.7%, respectively.
3.4. Conversion between Land-Use Classes
Land-use changes on Grand-Lahou Island between 1990 and 2025 were highlighted through transition matrices (Table 8). Values along the diagonal represent the stability rate of each land-use type for the respective periods. Between 1990 and 2000, forest (21.55%), food crops (24.02%), and other perennial crops (22.70%) were converted into coconut groves. The period 2000-2016 was marked by the transformation of coconut groves into food crops and forest, with conversion rates of 23.24% and 25.35%, respectively. The largest forest conversions were toward coconut groves (22.40%), food crops (19.16%), and other perennial crops (19.43%). From 2016 to 2025, the most significant conversion of coconut groves was into food crops, which gained 43.91% of their area, followed by other perennial crops (25.57%). Only 8.78% of coconut groves remained stable. Forests were also converted into other perennial crops at a rate of 27.44%.
Figure 4. Rates of change in land-use classes from 1990 to 2025.
4. Discussion
4.1. Evaluation of Map Quality
Validation of the classified images revealed overall accuracies consistently above 79%, with Kappa coefficients exceeding 0.70. These values indicate a good quality of the produced land-use maps [19]. Similarly, user’s accuracy values were
Table 8. Land-use transition matrix.
|
Bare ground |
Coconut grove |
Food crop |
Forest |
Mangrove |
Other crop |
Water |
Cloud |
1990-2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bare ground |
92.47 |
0.38 |
6.32 |
1.03 |
4.80 |
0.44 |
0.13 |
- |
Coconut grove |
1.76 |
78.07 |
24.02 |
21.55 |
8.32 |
22.70 |
0.38 |
- |
Food crop |
3.97 |
7.75 |
42.30 |
12.92 |
7.12 |
16.91 |
0.13 |
- |
Forest |
0.19 |
5.41 |
3.25 |
48.33 |
5.01 |
9.07 |
0.19 |
- |
Mangrove |
1.38 |
1.12 |
1.14 |
4.26 |
69.27 |
0.29 |
19.27 |
- |
Other crop |
0.08 |
7.25 |
22.97 |
11.80 |
0.38 |
50.60 |
0.00 |
- |
Water |
0.15 |
0.02 |
0.00 |
0.10 |
5.10 |
0.00 |
79.90 |
- |
2000-2016 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bare ground |
43.37 |
0.59 |
1.57 |
0.68 |
6.30 |
0.38 |
30.91 |
- |
Coconut grove |
10.56 |
36.72 |
29.13 |
22.40 |
12.97 |
21.13 |
2.06 |
- |
Food crop |
10.20 |
23.24 |
21.75 |
19.16 |
3.79 |
18.98 |
0.29 |
- |
Forest |
19.42 |
25.35 |
31.71 |
37.76 |
26.47 |
24.15 |
3.86 |
- |
Mangrove |
15.87 |
1.26 |
1.90 |
0.23 |
49.76 |
0.29 |
29.79 |
- |
Other crop |
0.59 |
12.38 |
13.78 |
19.43 |
0.43 |
34.76 |
2.20 |
- |
Water |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.26 |
0.00 |
30.91 |
- |
Cloud |
0.00 |
0.46 |
0.15 |
0.33 |
0.02 |
0.31 |
0.00 |
|
2016-2025 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bare ground |
25.86 |
3.55 |
2.73 |
2.43 |
9.29 |
2.51 |
0.81 |
0.72 |
Coconut grove |
1.29 |
8.78 |
3.09 |
5.34 |
1.73 |
4.68 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
Food crop |
20.64 |
43.91 |
55.60 |
22.21 |
4.27 |
31.19 |
0.09 |
5.77 |
Forest |
19.60 |
17.43 |
11.63 |
41.21 |
36.51 |
16.83 |
17.12 |
19.28 |
Mangrove |
12.91 |
0.75 |
0.15 |
1.36 |
40.17 |
0.06 |
14.32 |
0.00 |
Other crop |
12.80 |
25.57 |
26.80 |
27.44 |
7.21 |
44.73 |
0.18 |
74.23 |
Water |
6.91 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.02 |
0.82 |
0.00 |
67.48 |
0.00 |
satisfactory (PA > 75%). Such performances can be explained by the good knowledge of the study area and the limited number of land-use classes considered [20]. Across all dates, the main confusion occurred between forests and other classes, notably other crops and coconut groves. This reflects the complexity and high heterogeneity of perennial crop formations observed during our field surveys. Indeed, the “other perennial crops” class encompasses very old plantations of rubber (Hevea brasiliensis Muell Arg.) and cocoa (Theobroma cacao L.) intercropped with trees, which are difficult to distinguish from forests on LANDSAT imagery. This source of confusion has also been reported by [9] [20] using Sentinel-2 imagery with 10 m spatial resolution in southern Côte d’Ivoire.
4.2. Land-Use Dynamics of Grand-Lahou Island (1990-2025)
Our results indicate an increase in coconut grove areas between 1990 and 2000, followed by a sharp decline up to 2025. The initial expansion can be attributed to the absence of the Lethal Yellowing Disease, which encouraged the establishment of new plantations by the Société Ivoirienne de Coco Râpé (SICOR) on Grand-Lahou Island [6]. The first symptoms of the disease were observed from 1992 in the Grand-Lahou department, without causing massive plantation losses at that time [5]. Concurrently, forests declined during the 1990-2000 period, with an estimated annual deforestation rate of 3.9%, likely due to the expansion of coconut groves [10].
Between 2000 and 2016, coconut groves experienced an annual decline of 2.1%, which sharply increased to 8.9% between 2016 and 2025. This trend reflects the massive destruction of coconut groves on Grand-Lahou Island since 2000, directly linked to the spread of lethal yellowing. The disease caused a significant loss in coconut and copra production, estimated at over two billion CFA francs in Côte d’Ivoire [21] [22]. Indeed, the coconut lethal yellowing disease has caused the destruction of numerous coconut plantations over the past decades, including about 350 hectares within the large Ivorian plantation located in the Grand-Lahou district. These findings corroborate [23], which reported a dramatic increase in disease incidence after 2000, with up to 70% of coconut trees lost by 2012 in the study area.
In parallel, food crop areas expanded considerably between 2016 and 2025, largely due to the conversion of former coconut groves, representing 43.91% of the lost coconut area. The death of coconut trees created fallow lands suitable for agriculture, which local communities used for subsistence crops, such as cassava [6]. Additionally, [22] reported that in 2016, SICOR returned 2,500 ha of coconut plantations to local communities for agricultural use.
4.3. Coconut Cultivation on Grand-Lahou Island in the Context of Lethal Yellowing Disease
The conversion of coconut groves into other perennial crops between 2016 and 2025 reflects the abandonment of coconut cultivation in favor of alternative crops, driven by the devastating effects of lethal yellowing disease. During our field surveys, we observed the establishment of new plantations, including rubber, cocoa, and oil palm. The introduction of these crops appears to represent an adaptive strategy by local communities in response to the disease. However, the profitability and vulnerability of these newly established crops remain largely unknown.
5. Conclusion
This article provides an assessment of land-use dynamics on Grand-Lahou Island between 1990 and 2025. Analysis of Landsat satellite imagery indicates that the landscape, initially dominated by coconut plantations in 1990, has progressively shifted towards food crop cultivation. Land-use trajectories reveal an expansion of coconut plantations between 1990 and 2000, followed by a pronounced decline from 2000 to 2025. Between 2016 and 2025, 43.91% of coconut plantations were converted into food crops. The substantial conversion of coconut stands into other perennial crops, largely attributable to the devastating impact of coconut lethal yellowing disease, reflects a broader process of agricultural transition and the abandonment of coconut cultivation in favor of alternative crops within the study area. Considering the magnitude of coconut plantation losses, the establishment of an early detection system based on drone imagery for the identification of infected palms appears critical to mitigating the spread of lethal yellowing disease.
Authors’ Contributions
Conceptualization, K.J.M.K., A.T.M.K. and K.S.B.N.; methodology, K.J.M.K., A.T.M.K. and B.M.D.; validation, Y.S.S.B.; formal analysis, K.J.M.K. and B.M.D.; investigation, K.J.M.K., A.T.M.K. and B.M.D.; data curation, K.J.M.K. and B.M.D.; writing—original draft preparation, K.J.M.K.; writing-review and editing, K.J.M.K., A.T.M.K. and K.S.B.N.; visualization, Y.S.S.B.; supervision, M.S.T.; project administration, K.S.B.N.; funding acquisition, K.S.B.N.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
His activity was conducted with financial support from a grant provided by the International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada.