4.7 Article

Medium-Resolution Multispectral Data from Sentinel-2 to Assess the Damage and the Recovery Time of Late Frost on Vineyards

期刊

REMOTE SENSING
卷 12, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/rs12111896

关键词

spring frost; multispectral remote sensing; vegetation indices; grapevine; frost damage; Vitis vinifera

资金

  1. Italian Ministry of Research and University (MIUR) [RBSI14H5R0]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In a climate-change context, the advancement of phenological stages may endanger viticultural areas in the event of a late frost. This study evaluated the potential of satellite-based remote sensing to assess the damage and the recovery time after a late frost event in 2017 in northern Italian vineyards. Several vegetation indices (VIs) normalized on a two-year dataset (2018-2019) were compared over a frost-affected area (F) and a control area (NF) using unpaired two-sample t-test. Furthermore, the must quality data (total acidity, sugar content and pH) of F and NF were analyzed. The VIs most sensitive in the detection of frost damage were Chlorophyll Absorption Ratio Index (CARI), Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI), and Modified Triangular Vegetation Index 1 (MTVI1) (-5.26%, -16.59%, and -5.77% compared to NF, respectively). The spectral bands Near-Infrared (NIR) and Red Edge 7 were able to identify the frost damage (-16.55 and -16.67% compared to NF, respectively). Moreover, CARI, EVI, MTVI1, NIR, Red Edge 7, the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) and the Modified Simple Ratio (MSR) provided precise information on the full recovery time (+17.7%, +22.42%, +29.67%, +5.89%, +5.91%, +16.48%, and +8.73% compared to NF, respectively) approximately 40 days after the frost event. The must analysis showed that total acidity was higher (+5.98%), and pH was lower (-2.47%) in F compared to NF. These results suggest that medium-resolution multispectral data from Sentinel-2 constellation may represent a cost-effective tool for frost damage assessment and recovery management.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据