4.7 Article

Estimation of Hail Damage Using Crop Models and Remote Sensing

Journal

REMOTE SENSING
Volume 13, Issue 14, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/rs13142655

Keywords

remote sensing; hail damage; crop models; maize; crop insurance

Funding

  1. Cattolica Assicurazioni

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study demonstrates that integrating remote sensing and crop modeling offers a reliable, objective, and less labor-intensive method to estimate crop hail damage, providing a unique opportunity for the crop insurance market.
Insurance agents often provide crop hail damage estimates based on their personal experience and field samples, which are not always representative of the investigated field's spatial variability. For these reasons, farmers and the insurance market ask for a reliable, objective, and less labor-intensive method to determine crop hail losses. Integrating remote sensing and crop modeling provides a unique opportunity for the crop insurance market for a reliable, objective, and less labor-intensive method to estimate hail damage. To this end, a study was conducted on eight distinct maize fields for a total of 90 hectares. Five fields were damaged by the hailstorm that occurred on 13 July 2019 and three were not damaged. Soil and plant samples were collected to characterize the experimental areas. The Surface Energy Balance Algorithm for Land (SEBAL) was deployed to determine the total aboveground biomass and obtainable yield at harvest, using Landsat 7 and 8 satellite images. Modeled hail damages (HDDSSAT1, coupling SEBAL estimates of obtainable yield and DSSAT-based potential yield; HDDSSAT2, coupling yield map at harvest and the Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer (DSSAT)-based potential yield) were calculated and compared to the estimates of the insurance company (HDinsurance). SEBAL-based biomass and yield estimates agreed with in-season measurements (-4% and +0.5%, respectively). While some under and overestimations were observed, HDinsurance and HDDSSAT1 averaged similar values (-4.9% and +3.4%) compared to the reference approach (HDDSSAT2).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available