Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Uniting remote sensing, crop modelling and economics for agricultural risk management

Abstract

The increasing availability of satellite data at higher spatial, temporal and spectral resolutions is enabling new applications in agriculture and economic development, including agricultural insurance. Yet, effectively using satellite data in this context requires blending technical knowledge about their capabilities and limitations with an understanding of their influence on the value of risk-reduction programmes. In this Review, we discuss how approaches to estimate agricultural losses for index insurance have evolved from costly field-sampling-based campaigns towards lower-cost techniques using weather and satellite data. We identify advances in remote sensing and crop modelling for assessing agricultural conditions, but reliably and cheaply assessing production losses remains challenging in complex landscapes. We illustrate how an economic framework can be used to gauge and enhance the value of insurance based on earth-observation data, emphasizing that even as yield-estimation techniques improve, the value of an index insurance contract for the insured depends largely on how well it captures the losses when people suffer most. Strategically improving the collection and accessibility of reliable ground-reference data on crop types and production would facilitate this task. Audits to account for inevitable misestimation complement efforts to detect and protect against large losses.

Key points

  • In many developing regions, adverse weather can lead to food insecurity, reduced investments or distressed asset sales that ensnare people in a cycle of poverty.

  • Tools to manage risk — such as well-designed insurance — can help people avoid the most severe possible consequences of bad weather and build confidence to invest in additional income-generating opportunities.

  • In recent decades, governments and researchers across the globe have trialled approaches to inexpensively assess agricultural losses. Index-based insurance offers promise, but detecting losses cheaply and accurately remains challenging.

  • Recent advances in crop modelling and remote sensing can improve index-based approaches by strengthening the link between indices and actual losses, as well as reducing programme costs.

  • We provide an economic framework to evaluate indices, suggesting how the remote sensing and modelling communities can contribute to enhancing index insurance quality through better detection of adverse conditions.

  • Promising opportunities to enhance index insurance programmes include inexpensively addressing heterogeneous conditions on the ground, such as employing audits, optimizing insurance zones, using new sensors or increasing contract flexibility.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: The benefits of effective risk management before and after a shock.
Fig. 2: Insurable and uninsurable production risks under index insurance.
Fig. 3: Timeline of selected index insurance programmes.
Fig. 4: Timeline of selected sensors, measurement missions and gridded products used for evaluating indicators of agricultural conditions.
Fig. 5: Strength of various remotely sensed data used to indicate crop health, productivity and environmental stressors.
Fig. 6: Illustrating the effects of cloud cover on image quality.
Fig. 7: Illustrating index insurance quality evaluation.

Data availability

The authors declare that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article and its supplementary information files.

References

  1. 1.

    Ravallion, M. et al. Poverty Comparisons Vol. 56 (Taylor & Francis, 1994).

  2. 2.

    Townsend, R. M. Risk and insurance in village India. Econometrica 62, 539–591 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Jacoby, H. G. & Skoufias, E. Risk, financial markets, and human capital in a developing country. Rev. Econ. Stud. 64, 311–335 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Kochar, A. Smoothing consumption by smoothing income: hours-of-work responses to idiosyncratic agricultural shocks in rural India. Rev. Econ. Stat. 81, 50–61 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Alderman, H. & Paxson, C. H. in Economics in a Changing World (ed. Bacha, E. L.) 48–78 (Springer, 1994).

  6. 6.

    Kazianga, H. & Udry, C. Consumption smoothing? Livestock, insurance and drought in rural Burkina Faso. J. Dev. Econ. 79, 413–446 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Dercon, S. & Christiaensen, L. Consumption risk, technology adoption and poverty traps: evidence from Ethiopia. J. Dev. Econ. 96, 159–173 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Hill, R. V. & Viceisza, A. A field experiment on the impact of weather shocks and insurance on risky investment. Exp. Econ. 15, 341–371 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Oviedo, A. M. & Moroz, H. A Review of the Ex Post and Ex Ante Impacts of Risk (World Bank, 2013).

  10. 10.

    Cai, J. The impact of insurance provision on household production and financial decisions. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 8, 44–88 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Jensen, N. D. & Barrett, C. B. Agricultural index insurance for development. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 39, 199–219 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Shah, M. & Steinberg, B. M. Drought of opportunities: contemporaneous and long-term impacts of rainfall shocks on human capital. J. Political Econ. 125, 527–561 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Janzen, S. A. & Carter, M. R. After the drought: the impact of microinsurance on consumption smoothing and asset protection. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 101, 651–671 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Amare, M., Jensen, N. D., Shiferaw, B. & Cissé, J. D. Rainfall shocks and agricultural productivity: implication for rural household consumption. Agric. Syst. 166, 79–89 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Morduch, J. Income smoothing and consumption smoothing. J. Econ. Perspect. 9, 103–114 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Mobarak, A. M. & Rosenzweig, M. Informal risk sharing, index insurance, and risk taking in developing countries. Am. Econ. Rev. 103, 375–380 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Cole, S., Giné, X. & Vickery, J. How does risk management influence production decisions? Evidence from a field experiment. Rev. Financ. Stud. 30, 1935–1970 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Elabed, G. & Carter, M. R. Ex-ante Impacts of Agricultural Insurance: Evidence From a Field Experiment in Mali (Univ. California, Davis, 2014).

  19. 19.

    Karlan, D., Osei, R., Osei-Akoto, I. & Udry, C. Agricultural decisions after relaxing credit and risk constraints. Q. J. Econ. 129, 597–652 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Hill, R. V. et al. Ex ante and ex post effects of hybrid index insurance in Bangladesh. J. Dev. Econ. 136, 1–17 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Hazell, P. B. The appropriate role of agricultural insurance in developing countries. J. Int. Dev. 4, 567–581 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Skees, J. R., Hazell, P. B. & Miranda, M. J. New Approaches to Crop Yield Insurance in Developing Countries (International Food Policy Research Institute, 1999).

  23. 23.

    Pauly, M. V. The economics of moral hazard: comment. Am. Econ. Rev. 58, 531–537 (1968).

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Shavell, S. in Foundations of Insurance Economics (eds Dionne, G. & Harrington, S. E.) 280–301 (Springer, 1979).

  25. 25.

    Gommes, R. & Kayitakire, F. The Challenges of Index-based Insurance for Food Security in Developing Countries: Proceedings of a Technical Workshop Organised by the EC Joint Research Centre (JRC) and the International Research Institute for Climate and Society (IRI, Earth Institute, Columbia University), JRC Ispra, Italy, 2 and 3 May 2012 (European Commission, 2013).

  26. 26.

    Jensen, N. D., Mude, A. G. & Barrett, C. B. How basis risk and spatiotemporal adverse selection influence demand for index insurance: evidence from northern Kenya. Food Policy 74, 172–198 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Miranda, M. J. Area-yield crop insurance reconsidered. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 73, 233–242 (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Miranda, M. J. & Farrin, K. Index insurance for developing countries. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 34, 391–427 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Clarke, D. J. A theory of rational demand for index insurance. Am. Econ. J. Microecon. 8, 283–306 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Carter, M. R., de Janvry, A., Sadoulet, E. & Sarris, A. Index insurance for developing country agriculture: a reassessment. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 9, 421–438 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    De Leeuw, J. et al. The potential and uptake of remote sensing in insurance: a review. Remote Sens. 6, 10888–10912 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Vedenov, D. V. & Barnett, B. J. Efficiency of weather derivatives as primary crop insurance instruments. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 29, 387–403 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Berg, A., Quirion, P. & Sultan, B. Weather-index drought insurance in Burkina-Faso: assessment of its potential interest to farmers. Weather Clim. Soc. 1, 71–84 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Jensen, N. D., Barrett, C. B. & Mude, A. G. Index insurance quality and basis risk: evidence from northern Kenya. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 98, 1450–1469 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Carter, M. R. & Chiu, T. Quality standards for agricultural index insurance: an agenda for action. Microinsurance Network https://microinsurancenetwork.org/sites/default/files/SoM_2018_WEB_final.pdf (2018).

  36. 36.

    Harrison, G. W., Martínez-Correa, J., Ng, J. M. & Swarthout, J. T. Evaluating the welfare of index insurance: an application of behavioural welfare economics. Center for the Economic Analysis of Risk, Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University https://cear.gsu.edu/files/2020/05/CEAR-WP-2016-07-Evaluating-the-Welfare-of-Index-Insurance-MAY-2020.pdf (2020).

  37. 37.

    Morduch, J. Between the state and the market: can informal insurance patch the safety net? World Bank Res. Obs. 14, 187–207 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    African Risk Capacity. Response to ActionAid’s flawed claims. African Risk Capacity https://www.africanriskcapacity.org/2017/07/10/african-risk-capacity-response-to-actionaids-flawed-claims/ (2017).

  39. 39.

    Hazell, P. & Varangis, P. Best practices for subsidizing agricultural insurance. Glob. Food Security 25, 100326 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Kist, F. O., Meyers, G., Witcraft, S. E. & Sherman, H. A. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Index-Based Insurance Derivatives in Hedging Property/Casualty Insurance Transaction (American Academy of Actuaries Index Securitization Task Force, 1999).

  41. 41.

    Vrieling, A. et al. Historical extension of operational NDVI products for livestock insurance in Kenya. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 28, 238–251 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Black, E., Greatrex, H., Young, M. & Maidment, R. Incorporating satellite data into weather index insurance. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 97, ES203–ES206 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Jensen, N. D. et al. Does the design matter? Comparing satellite-based indices for insuring pastoralists against drought. Ecol. Econ. 162, 59–73 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Vrieling, A. et al. Early assessment of seasonal forage availability for mitigating the impact of drought on East African pastoralists. Remote Sens. Environ. 174, 44–55 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Fafchamps, M. Sequential labor decisions under uncertainty: an estimable household model of West-African farmers. Econometrica 61, 1173–1197 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Maidment, R. I. et al. The 30 TAMSAT African rainfall climatology and time series (TARCAT) data set. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 119, 10,619–10,644 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Leblois, A. & Quirion, P. Agricultural insurances based on meteorological indices: realizations, methods and research challenges. Meteorol. Appl. 20, 1–9 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Jia, H., Wang, J., Cao, C., Pan, D. & Shi, P. Maize drought disaster risk assessment of China based on EPIC model. Int. J. Digit. Earth 5, 488–515 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Yu, C. et al. Dynamic assessment of the impact of drought on agricultural yield and scale-dependent return periods over large geographic regions. Environ. Model. Softw. 62, 454–464 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Stojanovski, P. et al. Agricultural risk modeling challenges in China: probabilistic modeling of rice losses in Hunan Province. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci. 6, 335–346 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Elliott, J. et al. Characterizing agricultural impacts of recent large-scale US droughts and changing technology and management. Agric. Syst. 159, 275–281 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    JBA Risk Management. India crop model executive briefing. JBA Risk Management https://www.jbarisk.com/media/1443/jba-india-crop-model-executive-briefing.pdf (2018).

  53. 53.

    Carter, M. R. in Protecting the Poor: A Microinsurance Compendium Vol. II (eds Churchill, C. & Matul, M.) 238–257 (International Labour Office and Munich Re Foundation, 2012).

  54. 54.

    Chantarat, S., Mude, A. G., Barrett, C. B. & Carter, M. R. Designing index-based livestock insurance for managing asset risk in northern Kenya. J. Risk Insur. 80, 205–237 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Carletto, C., Savastano, S. & Zezza, A. Fact or Artefact: The Impact of Measurement Errors on the Farm Size–Productivity Relationship (World Bank, 2011).

  56. 56.

    Gourlay, S., Kilic, T. & Lobell, D. B. A new spin on an old debate: errors in farmer-reported production and their implications for inverse scale-productivity relationship in Uganda. J. Dev. Econ. 141, 102376 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Osgood, D. et al. Farmer perception, recollection, and remote sensing in weather index insurance: an Ethiopia case study. Remote Sens. 10, 1887 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Chakravarti, J. S. Agricultural Insurance a Practical Scheme Suited to Indian Conditions (Government Press, 1920).

  59. 59.

    Skees, J. R., Black, J. R. & Barnett, B. J. Designing and rating an area yield crop insurance contract. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 79, 430–438 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Elabed, G., Bellemare, M. F., Carter, M. R. & Guirkinger, C. Managing basis risk with multiscale index insurance. Agric. Econ. 44, 419–431 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Casaburi, L. & Willis, J. Time versus state in insurance: experimental evidence from contract farming in Kenya. Am. Econ. Rev. 108, 3778–3813 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Stoeffler, Q., Carter, M. R., Guirkinger, C. & Gelade, W. The spillover impact of index insurance on agricultural investment by cotton farmers in Burkina Faso. National Bureau of Economic Research https://www.nber.org/papers/w27564 (2020).

  63. 63.

    Makanza, R. et al. High-throughput method for ear phenotyping and kernel weight estimation in maize using ear digital imaging. Plant Methods 14, 49 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Ceballos, F., Kramer, B. & Robles, M. The feasibility of picture-based insurance (PBI): Smartphone pictures for affordable crop insurance. Dev. Eng. 4, 100042 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Platteau, J.-P., De Bock, O. & Gelade, W. The demand for microinsurance: a literature review. World Dev. 94, 139–156 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Hess, U., Hazell, P. & Kuhn, S. Innovations and Emerging Trends in Agricultural Insurance. (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, 2016).

  67. 67.

    Regional Centre for Mapping of Resources for Development (RCMRD). Using satellite imagery to improve implementation of crop insurance program in Kenya. Regional Centre for Mapping of Resources for Development (RCMRD) https://www.rcmrd.org/using-satellite-imagery-to-improve-implementation-of-crop-insurance-program-in-kenya (2019).

  68. 68.

    Stigler, M. M. & Lobell, D. Suitability of index insurance: new insights from satellite data. Agricultural and Applied Economics Association (AAEA) 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26–28, Kansas City, Missouri https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.304663 (2020).

  69. 69.

    Hernandez, E., Goslinga, R. & Wang, V. Using satellite data to scale smallholder agricultural insurance. CGAP http://www.cgap.org/sites/default/files/Brief-Using-Satellite-Data-Smallholder-Agricultural-Insurance-Aug-2018.pdf (2018).

  70. 70.

    Sahajpal, R., Coutu, S., Tombez, G. & Becker-Reshef, I. Reliably Forecasting Field-Scale Crop Yields Through Optimizing Number and Location of Crop Cuts: A Case Study in Ukraine (American Geophysical Union (AGU), 2019).

  71. 71.

    Greatrex, H. et al. Scaling Up Index Insurance for Smallholder Farmers: Recent Evidence and Insights (Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security, 2015).

  72. 72.

    Black, E. et al. The use of remotely sensed rainfall for managing drought risk: a case study of weather index insurance in Zambia. Remote Sens. 8, 342 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Flatnes, J. E. & Carter, M. R. Fail-safe index insurance without the cost: a satellite based conditional audit approach (Univ. California, 2016).

  74. 74.

    Vroege, W., Dalhaus, T. & Finger, R. Index insurances for grasslands–A review for Europe and North-America. Agric. Syst. 168, 101–111 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    AIR Worldwide. Current crop risk in India: how can it be managed effectively. AIR Worldwide https://www.air-worldwide.com/publications/air-currents/2019/Current-Crop-Risk-in-India-How-Can-It-Be-Managed-Effectively-/ (2019).

  76. 76.

    Ahmed, S., McIntosh, C. & Sarris, A. The impact of commercial rainfall index insurance: experimental evidence from Ethiopia. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 102, 1154–1176 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Forshaw, M. R. B., Haskell, A., Miller, P. F., Stanley, D. J. & Townshend, J. R. G. Spatial resolution of remotely sensed imagery A review paper. Int. J. Remote Sens. 4, 497–520 (1983).

    Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Apollo Mapping. Apollo Mapping price list. Apollo Mapping https://apollomapping.com/image_downloads/Apollo_Mapping_Imagery_Price_List.pdf (2018).

  79. 79.

    Weiss, M., Jacob, F. & Duveiller, G. Remote sensing for agricultural applications: a meta-review. Remote Sens. Environ. 236, 111402 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Lobell, D. B. The use of satellite data for crop yield gap analysis. Field Crops Res. 143, 56–64 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Hufkens, K. et al. Monitoring crop phenology using a smartphone based near-surface remote sensing approach. Agric. For. Meteorol. 265, 327–337 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    Guan, K. et al. The shared and unique values of optical, fluorescence, thermal and microwave satellite data for estimating large-scale crop yields. Remote Sens. Environ. 199, 333–349 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    Fritz, S. et al. A comparison of global agricultural monitoring systems and current gaps. Agric. Syst. 168, 258–272 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Tucker, C. J. Red and photographic infrared linear combinations for monitoring vegetation. Remote Sens. Environ. 8, 127–150 (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Anyamba, A. & Tucker, C. J. Historical Perspectives on AVHRR NDVI and Vegetation Drought Monitoring (NASA Publications, 2012).

  86. 86.

    Gitelson, A. A. Wide dynamic range vegetation index for remote quantification of biophysical characteristics of vegetation. J. Plant Physiol. 161, 165–173 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    Huete, A. et al. Overview of the radiometric and biophysical performance of the MODIS vegetation indices. Remote Sens. Environ. 83, 195–213 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    Gitelson, A. A. et al. Use of a green channel in remote sensing of global vegetation from EOS-MODIS. Remote Sens. Environ. 58, 289–298 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  89. 89.

    Gitelson, A. A. et al. Remote estimation of leaf area index and green leaf biomass in maize canopies. Geophys. Res. Lett. 30, 1248 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    Burke, M. & Lobell, D. B. Satellite-based assessment of yield variation and its determinants in smallholder African systems. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 2189–2194 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  91. 91.

    Khanal, S., Fulton, J. & Shearer, S. An overview of current and potential applications of thermal remote sensing in precision agriculture. Comput. Electron. Agric. 139, 22–32 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  92. 92.

    Steele-Dunne, S. C. et al. Radar remote sensing of agricultural canopies: a review. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 10, 2249–2273 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  93. 93.

    Basso, B. & Liu, L. Seasonal crop yield forecast: methods, applications, and accuracies. Adv. Agron. 154, 201–255 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  94. 94.

    Johnson, D. M. An assessment of pre-and within-season remotely sensed variables for forecasting corn and soybean yields in the United States. Remote Sens. Environ. 141, 116–128 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  95. 95.

    Peng, B., Guan, K., Pan, M. & Li, Y. Benefits of seasonal climate prediction and satellite data for forecasting US maize yield. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 9662–9671 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  96. 96.

    Jiang, H. et al. A deep learning approach to conflating heterogeneous geospatial data for corn yield estimation: a case study of the US Corn Belt at the county level. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 1754–1766 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  97. 97.

    Bolton, D. K. & Friedl, M. A. Forecasting crop yield using remotely sensed vegetation indices and crop phenology metrics. Agric. For. Meteorol. 173, 74–84 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  98. 98.

    Anderson, M. C. et al. The Evaporative Stress Index as an indicator of agricultural drought in Brazil: an assessment based on crop yield impacts. Remote Sens. Environ. 174, 82–99 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  99. 99.

    Enenkel, M. et al. Exploiting the convergence of evidence in satellite data for advanced weather index insurance design. Weather Clim. Soc. 11, 65–93 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  100. 100.

    Davenport, F. M. et al. Using out-of-sample yield forecast experiments to evaluate which earth observation products best indicate end of season maize yields. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 124095 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  101. 101.

    Wang, H., Ghosh, A., Linquist, B. A. & Hijmans, R. J. Satellite-based observations reveal effects of weather variation on rice phenology. Remote Sens. 12, 1522 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  102. 102.

    Franch, B. et al. Improving the timeliness of winter wheat production forecast in the United States of America, Ukraine and China using MODIS data and NCAR Growing Degree Day information. Remote Sens. Environ. 161, 131–148 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  103. 103.

    Funk, C. & Budde, M. E. Phenologically-tuned MODIS NDVI-based production anomaly estimates for Zimbabwe. Remote Sens. Environ. 113, 115–125 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  104. 104.

    Guanter, L. et al. Global and time-resolved monitoring of crop photosynthesis with chlorophyll fluorescence. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, E1327–E1333 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  105. 105.

    Sun, Y. et al. Overview of Solar-Induced chlorophyll Fluorescence (SIF) from the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2: retrieval, cross-mission comparison, and global monitoring for GPP. Remote Sens. Environ. 209, 808–823 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  106. 106.

    Köhler, P. et al. Global retrievals of solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence with TROPOMI: first results and intersensor comparison to OCO-2. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 10–456 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  107. 107.

    Guan, K. et al. Improving the monitoring of crop productivity using spaceborne solar-induced fluorescence. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 716–726 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  108. 108.

    Song, L. et al. Satellite sun-induced chlorophyll fluorescence detects early response of winter wheat to heat stress in the Indian Indo-Gangetic Plains. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 4023–4037 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  109. 109.

    Somkuti, P. et al. A new space-borne perspective of crop productivity variations over the US Corn Belt. Agric. For. Meteorol. 281, 107826 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  110. 110.

    He, L. et al. From the ground to space: using solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence (SIF) to estimate crop productivity. Geophys. Res. Lett. 47, e2020GL087474 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  111. 111.

    Chaparro, D. et al. L-band vegetation optical depth seasonal metrics for crop yield assessment. Remote Sens. Environ. 212, 249–259 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  112. 112.

    Wiseman, G., McNairn, H., Homayouni, S. & Shang, J. RADARSAT-2 polarimetric SAR response to crop biomass for agricultural production monitoring. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 7, 4461–4471 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  113. 113.

    Mateo-Sanchis, A. et al. Synergistic integration of optical and microwave satellite data for crop yield estimation. Remote Sens. Environ. 234, 111460 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  114. 114.

    Zhu, Z. & Woodcock, C. E. Automated cloud, cloud shadow, and snow detection in multitemporal Landsat data: an algorithm designed specifically for monitoring land cover change. Remote Sens. Environ. 152, 217–234 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  115. 115.

    Jain, M. The benefits and pitfalls of using satellite data for causal inference. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 14, 157–169 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  116. 116.

    Whitcraft, A. K., Vermote, E. F., Becker-Reshef, I. & Justice, C. O. Cloud cover throughout the agricultural growing season: impacts on passive optical earth observations. Remote Sens. Environ. 156, 438–447 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  117. 117.

    Sudmanns, M., Tiede, D., Augustin, H. & Lang, S. Assessing global Sentinel-2 coverage dynamics and data availability for operational Earth observation (EO) applications using the EO-Compass. Int. J. Digit. Earth 13, 768–784 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  118. 118.

    Gao, F., Masek, J., Schwaller, M. & Hall, F. On the blending of the Landsat and MODIS surface reflectance: predicting daily Landsat surface reflectance. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 44, 2207–2218 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  119. 119.

    Houborg, R. & McCabe, M. F. A Cubesat enabled Spatio-Temporal Enhancement Method (CESTEM) utilizing Planet, Landsat and MODIS data. Remote Sens. Environ. 209, 211–226 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  120. 120.

    Luo, Y., Guan, K. & Peng, J. STAIR: a generic and fully-automated method to fuse multiple sources of optical satellite data to generate a high-resolution, daily and cloud-/gap-free surface reflectance product. Remote Sens. Environ. 214, 87–99 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  121. 121.

    Zhu, X., Cai, F., Tian, J. & Williams, T. K.-A. Spatiotemporal fusion of multisource remote sensing data: literature survey, taxonomy, principles, applications, and future directions. Remote Sens. 10, 527 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  122. 122.

    Veloso, A. et al. Understanding the temporal behavior of crops using Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2-like data for agricultural applications. Remote Sens. Environ. 199, 415–426 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  123. 123.

    Kenduiywo, B. K., Bargiel, D. & Soergel, U. Crop-type mapping from a sequence of Sentinel 1 images. Int. J. Remote Sens. 39, 6383–6404 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  124. 124.

    Scarpa, G., Gargiulo, M., Mazza, A. & Gaetano, R. A CNN-based fusion method for feature extraction from sentinel data. Remote Sens. 10, 236 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  125. 125.

    Forkuor, G., Conrad, C., Thiel, M., Ullmann, T. & Zoungrana, E. Integration of optical and Synthetic Aperture Radar imagery for improving crop mapping in Northwestern Benin, West Africa. Remote Sens. 6, 6472–6499 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  126. 126.

    Van Tricht, K., Gobin, A., Gilliams, S. & Piccard, I. Synergistic use of radar Sentinel-1 and optical Sentinel-2 imagery for crop mapping: a case study for Belgium. Remote Sens. 10, 1642 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  127. 127.

    Shuai, G. et al. Multi-temporal RADARSAT-2 polarimetric SAR for maize mapping supported by segmentations from high-resolution optical image. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 74, 1–15 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  128. 128.

    Fieuzal, R., Sicre, C. M. & Baup, F. Estimation of corn yield using multi-temporal optical and radar satellite data and artificial neural networks. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 57, 14–23 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  129. 129.

    Ameline, M., Fieuzal, R., Betbeder, J., Berthoumieu, J.-F. & Baup, F. Estimation of corn yield by assimilating SAR and optical time series into a simplified agro-meteorological model: from diagnostic to forecast. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 11, 4747–4760 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  130. 130.

    Hosseini, M. et al. Synthetic aperture radar and optical satellite data for estimating the biomass of corn. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 83, 101933 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  131. 131.

    Bose, P., Kasabov, N. K., Bruzzone, L. & Hartono, R. N. Spiking neural networks for crop yield estimation based on spatiotemporal analysis of image time series. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 54, 6563–6573 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  132. 132.

    Gandhi, N., Armstrong, L. J., Petkar, O. & Tripathy, A. K. in 2016 13th International Joint Conference on Computer Science and Software Engineering (JCSSE) 1–5 (IEEE, 2016).

  133. 133.

    You, J., Li, X., Low, M., Lobell, D. & Ermon, S. in Thirty-First AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI, 2017).

  134. 134.

    Cai, Y. et al. Integrating satellite and climate data to predict wheat yield in Australia using machine learning approaches. Agric. For. Meteorol. 274, 144–159 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  135. 135.

    Mann, M. L., Warner, J. M. & Malik, A. S. Predicting high-magnitude, low-frequency crop losses using machine learning: an application to cereal crops in Ethiopia. Clim. Change 154, 211–227 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  136. 136.

    Kaneko, A. et al. in International Conference on Machine Learning AI for Social Good Workshop (AI for Social Good, 2019).

  137. 137.

    Hobbs, A. & Svetlichnaya, S. Satellite-based prediction of forage conditions for livestock in Northern Kenya. arxiv https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.04081 (2020).

  138. 138.

    Chlingaryan, A., Sukkarieh, S. & Whelan, B. Machine learning approaches for crop yield prediction and nitrogen status estimation in precision agriculture: a review. Comput. Electron. Agric. 151, 61–69 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  139. 139.

    Qin, Y. et al. in Proceedings of the 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence 2627–2633 (IJCAI, 2017).

  140. 140.

    Kamilaris, A. & Prenafeta-Boldú, F. X. Deep learning in agriculture: a survey. Comput. Electron. Agric. 147, 70–90 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  141. 141.

    Richetti, J. et al. Using phenology-based enhanced vegetation index and machine learning for soybean yield estimation in Paraná State, Brazil. J. Appl. Remote Sens. 12, 026029 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  142. 142.

    Zhang, L., Zhang, Z., Luo, Y., Cao, J. & Tao, F. Combining optical, fluorescence, thermal satellite, and environmental data to predict county-level maize yield in China using machine learning approaches. Remote Sens. 12, 21 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  143. 143.

    Challinor, A. J. et al. Improving the use of crop models for risk assessment and climate change adaptation. Agric. Syst. 159, 296–306 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  144. 144.

    Peng, B. et al. Towards a multiscale crop modelling framework for climate change adaptation assessment. Nat. Plants 6, 338–348 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  145. 145.

    Sinclair, T. R. & Seligman, N. G. Crop modeling: from infancy to maturity. Agron. J. 88, 698–704 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  146. 146.

    Li, T. et al. Uncertainties in predicting rice yield by current crop models under a wide range of climatic conditions. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 1328–1341 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  147. 147.

    Müller, C. et al. Global gridded crop model evaluation: benchmarking, skills, deficiencies and implications. Geosci. Model Dev. 10, 1403–1422 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  148. 148.

    Deryng, D., Conway, D., Ramankutty, N., Price, J. & Warren, R. Global crop yield response to extreme heat stress under multiple climate change futures. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 034011 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  149. 149.

    Jin, Z. et al. Do maize models capture the impacts of heat and drought stresses on yield? Using algorithm ensembles to identify successful approaches. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 3112–3126 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  150. 150.

    Li, Y., Guan, K., Schnitkey, G. D., DeLucia, E. & Peng, B. Excessive rainfall leads to maize yield loss of a comparable magnitude to extreme drought in the united states. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 2325–2337 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  151. 151.

    Bassu, S. et al. How do various maize crop models vary in their responses to climate change factors? Glob. Change Biol. 20, 2301–2320 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  152. 152.

    Martre, P. et al. Multimodel ensembles of wheat growth: many models are better than one. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 911–925 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  153. 153.

    Rosenzweig, C. et al. Assessing agricultural risks of climate change in the 21st century in a global gridded crop model intercomparison. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3268–3273 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  154. 154.

    Raftery, A. E., Madigan, D. & Hoeting, J. A. Bayesian model averaging for linear regression models. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 92, 179–191 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  155. 155.

    Wöhling, T., Schöniger, A., Gayler, S. & Nowak, W. Bayesian model averaging to explore the worth of data for soil-plant model selection and prediction. Water Resour. Res. 51, 2825–2846 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  156. 156.

    Huang, J. et al. Assimilating a synthetic Kalman filter leaf area index series into the WOFOST model to improve regional winter wheat yield estimation. Agric. For. Meteorol. 216, 188–202 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  157. 157.

    Castañeda-Vera, A., Leffelaar, P. A., Álvaro-Fuentes, J., Cantero-Martínez, C. & Mínguez, M. I. Selecting crop models for decision making in wheat insurance. Eur. J. Agron. 68, 97–116 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  158. 158.

    Müller, C. et al. The Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison phase 1 simulation dataset. Sci. Data 6, 50 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  159. 159.

    Hengl, T. et al. SoilGrids250m: global gridded soil information based on machine learning. PLoS ONE 12, e0169748 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  160. 160.

    Pongratz, J. et al. Models meet data: challenges and opportunities in implementing land management in Earth system models. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 1470–1487 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  161. 161.

    Folberth, C. et al. Uncertainty in soil data can outweigh climate impact signals in global crop yield simulations. Nat. Commun. 7, 11872 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  162. 162.

    Srivastava, A. K., Mboh, C. M., Gaiser, T., Webber, H. & Ewert, F. Effect of sowing date distributions on simulation of maize yields at regional scale–A case study in Central Ghana, West Africa. Agric. Syst. 147, 10–23 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  163. 163.

    Ceglar, A. et al. Improving WOFOST model to simulate winter wheat phenology in Europe: evaluation and effects on yield. Agric. Syst. 168, 168–180 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  164. 164.

    Zinyengere, N., Crespo, O., Hachigonta, S. & Tadross, M. Local impacts of climate change and agronomic practices on dry land crops in Southern Africa. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 197, 1–10 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  165. 165.

    Assefa, Y. et al. Yield responses to planting density for US modern corn hybrids: a synthesis-analysis. Crop. Sci. 56, 2802–2817 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  166. 166.

    Salo, T. J. et al. Comparing the performance of 11 crop simulation models in predicting yield response to nitrogen fertilization. J. Agric. Sci. 154, 1218–1240 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  167. 167.

    Elliott, J. et al. Constraints and potentials of future irrigation water availability on agricultural production under climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3239–3244 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  168. 168.

    Zaveri, E. & Lobell, D. B. The role of irrigation in changing wheat yields and heat sensitivity in India. Nat. Commun. 10, 4144 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  169. 169.

    Kubitza, C., Krishna, V. V., Schulthess, U. & Jain, M. Estimating adoption and impacts of agricultural management practices in developing countries using satellite data. A scoping review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 40, 16 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  170. 170.

    Reinermann, S., Asam, S. & Kuenzer, C. Remote sensing of grassland production and management — a review. Remote Sens. 12, 1949 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  171. 171.

    De Wit, A. & Van Diepen, C. Crop model data assimilation with the Ensemble Kalman filter for improving regional crop yield forecasts. Agric. For. Meteorol. 146, 38–56 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  172. 172.

    Ines, A. V., Das, N. N., Hansen, J. W. & Njoku, E. G. Assimilation of remotely sensed soil moisture and vegetation with a crop simulation model for maize yield prediction. Remote Sens. Environ. 138, 149–164 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  173. 173.

    Andreadis, K. M. et al. The regional hydrologic extremes assessment system: a software framework for hydrologic modeling and data assimilation. PLoS ONE 12, e0176506 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  174. 174.

    Kang, Y. & Özdog˘an, M. Field-level crop yield mapping with Landsat using a hierarchical data assimilation approach. Remote Sens. Environ. 228, 144–163 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  175. 175.

    Pagani, V. et al. A high-resolution, integrated system for rice yield forecasting at district level. Agric. Syst. 168, 181–190 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  176. 176.

    Nearing, G. S. et al. Assimilating remote sensing observations of leaf area index and soil moisture for wheat yield estimates: an observing system simulation experiment. Water Resour. Res. 48, W05525 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  177. 177.

    Lobell, D. B., Thau, D., Seifert, C., Engle, E. & Little, B. A scalable satellite-based crop yield mapper. Remote Sens. Environ. 164, 324–333 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  178. 178.

    Azzari, G., Jain, M. & Lobell, D. B. Towards fine resolution global maps of crop yields: testing multiple methods and satellites in three countries. Remote Sens. Environ. 202, 129–141 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  179. 179.

    Jin, Z., Azzari, G. & Lobell, D. B. Improving the accuracy of satellite-based high-resolution yield estimation: a test of multiple scalable approaches. Agric. For. Meteorol. 247, 207–220 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  180. 180.

    Jin, Z. et al. Smallholder maize area and yield mapping at national scales with Google Earth Engine. Remote Sens. Environ. 228, 115–128 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  181. 181.

    Lobell, D. B. et al. Eyes in the sky, boots on the ground: assessing satellite-and ground-based approaches to crop yield measurement and analysis. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 102, 202–219 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  182. 182.

    Lobell, D. B. et al. Sight for sorghums: comparisons of satellite-and ground-based sorghum yield estimates in Mali. Remote Sens. 12, 100 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  183. 183.

    Leroux, L. et al. Maize yield estimation in West Africa from crop process-induced combinations of multi-domain remote sensing indices. Eur. J. Agron. 108, 11–26 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  184. 184.

    Karpatne, A. et al. Theory-guided data science: a new paradigm for scientific discovery from data. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 29, 2318–2331 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  185. 185.

    Read, J. S. et al. Process-guided deep learning predictions of lake water temperature. Water Resour. Res. 55, 9173–9190 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  186. 186.

    Ganguly, A. et al. Toward enhanced understanding and projections of climate extremes using physics-guided data mining techniques. Nonlin. Process. Geophys. 21, 777–795 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  187. 187.

    Jia, X. et al. in Proceedings of the 2019 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining 558–566 (SIAM, 2019).

  188. 188.

    Wang, N., Zhang, D., Chang, H. & Li, H. Deep learning of subsurface flow via theory-guided neural network. J. Hydrol. 584, 124700 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  189. 189.

    Yang, T. et al. Evaluation and machine learning improvement of global hydrological model-based flood simulations. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 114027 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  190. 190.

    Columbia University. Using AI to better understand and model the Earth system: International research team wins major grant to support work combining machine learning with physical models of atmosphere and land to improve climate modeling and methods. Columbia University https://engineering.columbia.edu/news/ai-model-earth-system (2019).

  191. 191.

    Funk, C. et al. The climate hazards infrared precipitation with stations — a new environmental record for monitoring extremes. Sci. Data 2, 150066 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  192. 192.

    van Etten, J. et al. Crop variety management for climate adaptation supported by citizen science. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 4194–4199 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  193. 193.

    Luciani, T. C., Distasio, B. A., Bungert, J., Sumner, M. & Bozzo, T. L. Use of drones to assist with insurance, financial and underwriting related activities. US Patent Application 14/843,455 (2016).

  194. 194.

    Yinka-Banjo, C. & Ajayi, O. Sky-farmers: Applications of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) in agriculture. IntechOpen https://www.intechopen.com/online-first/sky-farmers-applications-of-unmanned-aerial-vehicles-uav-in-agriculture (2019).

  195. 195.

    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. In East Africa, a race to outsmart locusts with drones and data. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations http://www.fao.org/fao-stories/article/en/c/1270472/ (2020).

  196. 196.

    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. E-agriculture in action: drones for agriculture. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations http://www.fao.org/3/I8494EN/i8494en.pdf (2018).

  197. 197.

    Benami, E. & Carter, M. R. Can digital technologies reshape rural microfinance? Implications for credit, insurance, and saving. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13151 (2021).

  198. 198.

    Hill, R. V., et al. Flexible insurance for heterogeneous farmers: Results from a small-scale pilot in Ethiopia. International Food Policy Research Institute https://www.ifpri.org/publication/flexible-insurance-heterogeneous-farmers (2011).

  199. 199.

    Smith, W. K., Fox, A. M., MacBean, N., Moore, D. J. & Parazoo, N. C. Constraining estimates of terrestrial carbon uptake: new opportunities using long-term satellite observations and data assimilation. New Phytol. 225, 105–112 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work has benefited from research conducted under the auspices of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Markets, Risk and Resilience (grant no. 7200AA19LE00004), which M.R.C. directs and from which M.R.C., E.B. and A.H. have previously received funds. The contents are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the USAID or the United States Government.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

E.B. and Z.J. jointly designed, wrote and edited the full manuscript prior to submission, with substantial input from M.R.C., D.B.L. and R.J.H. A.H. edited the manuscript prior to submission and reviewed the code for the case study for accuracy. A.H. and B.K. helped E.B. and Z.J. research data for Fig. 3 and A.G. for Figs 4,5.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Elinor Benami or Zhenong Jin.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information

Nature Reviews Earth & Environment thanks K. Takahashi, A. Vrieling, L.M. Robles and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Related links

Index Insurance Forum: https://www.indexinsuranceforum.org/about-site

OptiSAR: https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/o/optisar

Supplementary information

Glossary

Loss-adjusted insurance

Insurance that requires the assessment of claims to issue payment.

Moral hazard

A hazard that occurs when an insured individual takes actions that increase risk and make insurance payouts more likely.

Adverse selection

A situation that insurers are prone to when only the riskiest subset of the population purchases insurance, such that pay-offs occur more frequently than they would if every person purchases insurance.

Insurance zone

An area covered by a single index value.

Premium

The amount of money paid to have insurance coverage.

Crop cuts

Preharvest crop yield estimates derived from visiting and physically harvesting and weighing a sample of production from a selection of fields.

Design risk

The failure of the index to accurately capture average losses in the insurance zone.

False negatives

The cases when no payout is triggered, despite some insured individuals experiencing losses; arises from design or idiosyncratic risk.

False positives

The cases when the insurance index signals a loss and issues a payout, even though some insured individuals did not experience a loss.

Basis risk

The risk that index insurance payments do not cover the losses experienced by an individual. Basis risk is the sum of the design risk and the idiosyncratic risk.

Expected utility

A measure of anticipated future economic well-being that increases with expected income and, for a risk-averse person, decreases with the variance of income.

Certainty equivalent

The amount of money that, if received for sure, would make a person indifferent between the sure money and a set of risky income prospects.

Crop mask

A map that characterizes the extent and type of crops over a region, often derived from satellite imagery classification.

Idiosyncratic risk

Risk that is specific to an individual and is uncorrelated with losses experienced by neighbours or others in the insurance zone.

Trigger

The level of the index at which payouts begin to occur (for example, 90 mm of rainfall during planting season).

Risk averse

Exhibiting the preference to give up some money in expectation in order to reduce variability.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Benami, E., Jin, Z., Carter, M.R. et al. Uniting remote sensing, crop modelling and economics for agricultural risk management. Nat Rev Earth Environ 2, 140–159 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-020-00122-y

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links