Status of accuracy in remotely sensed and in-situ agricultural water productivity estimates: A review

The scarcity of water and the growing global food demand has fevered the debate on how to increase agricultural production without further depleting water resources. Crop water productivity (CWP) is a performance indicator to monitor and evaluate water use efficiency in agriculture. Often in remote...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Remote sensing of environment 2019-12, Vol.234, p.111413, Article 111413
Hauptverfasser: Blatchford, Megan L., Mannaerts, Chris M., Zeng, Yijian, Nouri, Hamideh, Karimi, Poolad
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The scarcity of water and the growing global food demand has fevered the debate on how to increase agricultural production without further depleting water resources. Crop water productivity (CWP) is a performance indicator to monitor and evaluate water use efficiency in agriculture. Often in remote sensing datasets of CWP and its components, i.e. crop yield or above ground biomass production (AGBP) and evapotranspiration (ETa), the end-users and developers are different actors. The accuracy of the datasets should therefore be clear to both users and developers. We assess the accuracy of remotely sensed CWP against the accuracy of estimated in-situ CWP. First, the accuracy of CWP based on in-situ methods, which are assumed to be the user's benchmark for CWP accuracy, is reviewed. Then, the accuracy of current remote sensing products is described to determine if the accuracy benchmark, as set by in-situ methods, can be met with current algorithms. The percentage error of CWP from in-situ methods ranges from 7% to 67%, depending on method and scale. The error of CWP from remote sensing ranges from 7% to 22%, based on the highest reported performing remote sensing products. However, when considering the entire breadth of reported crop yield and ETa accuracy, the achievable errors propagate to CWP ranges of 74% to 108%. Although the remote sensing CWP appears comparable to the accuracy of in-situ methods in many cases, users should determine whether it is suitable for their specific application of CWP. •Accuracy of in-situ and remote sensing crop water productivity (CWP) are reviewed.•Remote sensing can achieve accuracy within the error bounds of in-situ methods.•Uncertainty varies significantly dependent on method and application.•Significant uncertainty exists when converting dry matter production to yield.
ISSN:0034-4257
1879-0704
DOI:10.1016/j.rse.2019.111413