## 3 Results  
The best estimate for SD was obtained using TM with MCD13 data source and EVI index, with RMSE of 16 days, R of 0.8, and bias of 10.4%. The best estimate for HD was obtained using PX with S2 data source and EVI index, with RMSE of 18 days, R of 0.75, and bias of -0.2%. Both packages showed distributions similar to the field data distribution (Figure S5). DT and GB showed the worst results, with most correlations below 0.5 and errors greater than 40 days (Table S1). The CP and PF packages showed low errors when compared to the field data but were less correlated; in general, R ranged between 0.5 and 0.7. Although some results have shown greater similarity with the ground-based data, it is still possible to observe many uncertainties in the estimates (the number of outliers in Figure 4 and dispersion around the 1:1 line in Figure 5). Although performance differences exist when changing data sources, some algorithms perform similarly when changing platforms (Table S1 and Figure 4). For example, TM's biggest difference in R was less than 0.1 from MCD13 EVI2 to MOD09 NDVI. However, DT and GB were the most sensitive to data source changes at harvest, with DT's R varying from 0.29 with MOD13 NDVI to 0.47 on Sentinel-2 NDVI and at sowing with GB's R from 0.25 to 0.51 from MCD13 NDVI to MOD13 NDVI. Overall, EVI2 showed better results and more correlation with field data for all packages (Table S1 and Figure 4). The SD estimates were statistically equal to the data observed in the field using the CP and PF package and \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Package** & **CP** & **DT** & **PX** & **TM** \\ **(Parameters)** & **(Threshold)** & **(Derivative)** & **(Threshold)** & **(Threshold)** \\ \hline MCD13 & (0.25, 0.35) & (median, last) & (0.15, 0.15) & (0.15, 0.20) \\ MOD09 & (0.30, 0.35) & (median, last) & (0.15, 0.15) & (0.15, 0.20) \\ MOD13 & (0.25, 0.25) & (median, last) & (0.15, 0.15) & (0.15, 0.20) \\ Sentinel-2 & (0.10, 0.40) & (median, last) & (0.10, 0.10) & (0.10, 0.10) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Numbers and methods in parentheses indicate the parameter value for the sowing and harvest dates, respectively.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Parameters of each package used for validation of the phenological metrics, with CP (CropPhenology), DT (DEA tools), PX (phenex), and TM (TIMESAT). MODIS and Sentinel-2 datasets, as well as the PX package using the MODIS dataset and TM using the MOD13 dataset (Figure 4). For the HD estimates, the CP and PX packages showed similarity to field data using MODIS and Sentinel-2 datasets, as well as the PF package using MODIS data. Only EVI2 was used in subsequent evaluations as it showed similar and slightly better results to NDVI. Although most of the fields estimated by the TM package achieved a good fit, some fields could not be estimated adequately, especially the very low values that were associated with the package not returning estimates for the time series. For example, null values for SD or high values for HD indicated that the package ran through the time series and picked the end of the series without finding the end of the crop cycle (Figure 5). There was a difference in the estimates between the different regions. In general, the estimates were lower than the observed data for the northern region and higher in the southern region (Figure 6 and S6-S9). For both estimates, most of the packages were consistent with the field observation, except for the DT and GB packages. TM was the most robust algorithm with more consistent results regarding RMSE, bias, and R (Table S1), regardless of changes in the data source. The GB package, contrarily, was the most sensitive to changes in the data source. However, all methods have some sensitivity to changes in data sources. For example, the less sensitive (TM) for SD has an average error between Sentinel-2 and MOD13 of about 10 days (Figure 7a) while almost 15 days from Sentinel-2 to MCD13 (Figure 7b).