Estimation of Hail Damage Using Crop Models and Remote Sensing
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-inten...
Saved in:
Published in | Remote sensing (Basel, Switzerland) Vol. 13; no. 14; p. 2655 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
Basel
MDPI AG
01.07.2021
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | 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). |
---|---|
ISSN: | 2072-4292 2072-4292 |
DOI: | 10.3390/rs13142655 |