Modelling crop hail damage footprints with single-polarization radar: the roles of spatial resolution, hail intensity, and cropland density
-
Published:2024-07-25
Issue:7
Volume:24
Page:2541-2558
-
ISSN:1684-9981
-
Container-title:Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.
Author:
Portmann RaphaelORCID, Schmid TimoORCID, Villiger LeonieORCID, Bresch David N.ORCID, Calanca PierluigiORCID
Abstract
Abstract. Hail represents a major threat to agriculture in Switzerland, and assessments of current and future hail risk are of paramount importance for decision-making in the insurance industry and the agricultural sector. However, relating observational information on hail with crop-specific damage is challenging. Here, we build and systematically assess an open-source model to predict hail damage footprints for field crops (wheat, maize, barley, rapeseed) and grapevine from the operational radar product Maximum Expected Severe Hail Size (MESHS) at different spatial resolutions. To this end, we combine the radar information with detailed geospatial information on agricultural land use and geo-referenced damage data from a crop insurer for 12 recent hail events in Switzerland. We find that for field crops model skill gradually increases when the spatial resolution is reduced from 1 km down to 8 km. For even lower resolutions, the skill is diminished again. In contrast, for grapevine, decreasing model resolution below 1 km tends to reduce skill, which is attributed to the different spatial distribution of field crops and grapevine in the landscape. It is shown that identifying a suitable MESHS thresholds to model damage footprints always involves trade-offs. For the lowest possible MESHS threshold (20 mm) the model predicts damage about twice as often as observed (high frequency bias and false alarm ratio), but it also has a high probability of detection (80 %). The frequency bias decreases for larger thresholds and reaches an optimal value close to 1 for MESHS thresholds of 30–40 mm. However, this comes at the cost of a substantially lower probability of detection (around 50 %), while overall model skill, as measured by the Heidke skill score (HSS), remains largely unchanged (0.41–0.44). We argue that, ultimately, the best threshold therefore depends on the relative costs of a false alarm versus a missed event. Finally, the frequency of false alarms is substantially reduced and skill is improved (HSS = 0.54) when only areas with high cropland density are considered. Results from this simple, open-source model show that modelling of hail damage footprints to crops from single-polarization radar in Switzerland is skilful and is best done at 8 km resolution for field crops and 1 km for grapevine.
Funder
Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
Publisher
Copernicus GmbH
Reference68 articles.
1. AIR Worldwide: AIR's Crop Hail Model, https://www.air-worldwide.com/models/crop/AIR-s-Crop-Hail-Model/ (last access: 18 September 2023), 2023. a 2. Allen, J. T., Giammanco, I. M., Kumjian, M. R., Jurgen Punge, H., Zhang, Q., Groenemeijer, P., Kunz, M., and Ortega, K.: Understanding Hail in the Earth System, Rev. Geophys., 58, e2019RG000665, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019RG000665, 2020. a 3. Aznar-Siguan, G. and Bresch, D. N.: CLIMADA v1: a global weather and climate risk assessment platform, Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 3085–3097, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-3085-2019, 2019. a, b, c 4. Aznar-Siguan, G., Schmid, E., Vogt, T., Eberenz, S., Steinmann, C., Yu, Y., Röösli, T., Lüthi, S., Sauer, I., Mühlhofer, E., Hartman, J., Kropf, C., Guillod, B., Stalhandske, Z., Ciullo, A., Bresch, D. N., Fairless, C., Riedel, L., Kam, P. M. , Colombi, N., Meiler, S., Portmann, R., Bozzini, V., Stocker, D., and Schmid, T.: CLIMADA-project/climada_python: v3.3.3 (v3.3.3), Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7691855, 2023. a 5. Baker, M. E., Weller, D. E., and Jordan, T. E.: Effects of Stream Map Resolution on Measures of Riparian Buffer Distribution and Nutrient Retention Potential, Landscape Ecol., 22, 973–992, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-007-9080-z, 2007. a
|
|