4 ms·

This topic is mostly new to me so I'm sure this is a dumb question, but what is the benefit here? I would have thought farmers could just manually sample soil m

This topic is mostly new to me so I'm sure this is a dumb question, but what is the benefit here? I would have thought farmers could just manually sample soil moisture levels to get pretty much the same data. The article also mentions the SMAP satellite that can already read soil moisture from space. Is this fluorescence a more reliable early predictor? Is it an easier way to get the data we need?

bryant 2y ago
Speculating: Heat (within reason) encourages plant growth provided the other ingredients are there. Plant growth shows up through this luminescence. If a lack of rain can be projected, then the drawdown of ground water can now also be more accurately projected by understanding how much plant growth is taking place. I imagine this can impact emergency prep or other measures e.g around irrigation to get ahead of groundwater depletion resulting in flash crop loss. But that's my take on the value.
xhkkffbf 2y ago
Well, if you make satellites like the Orbiting Carbon Observatory, this is a good reason to make another, more sophisticated version. But you're right that cheaper, more local telemetry may be more than adequate. Heck, you can probably think, "I don't remember the last time it rained..."
dylan604 2y ago
If you're the government wanting to see the status of the whole country very quickly vs waiting for every single local farmer to report their results to be compiled into a larger view, the satellite view is much more efficient. Food production has somewhat of a strategic value that a government wants to know about.
- dietr1ch 2y ago
  Well, when the government wanted to monitor earthquakes across the whole world they just deployed sensors. Same thing with Sattelites. I don't understand why it wouldn't deploy weather stations and humidity sensors within its own borders.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    we have the tech to do it from space now with a single sensing platform vs individual sensors on private land. doesn't take much of an imagination to see why one is preferred over the other. USGS can place their sensors on gov't land and get the readings they need. Department of Ag can't really do the same thing.
rmason 2y ago
If you're not aware of it the government does crop estimates. Its not done solely by satellite, they have teams go out to fields and make spot checks. Now infrared photography can show crop stress but it can't pinpoint the reason. If they can get these genetics into the seed they can know the impact of drought nationwide. They can also send more scouts to these areas to make an educated guess on how bad the drought might be. Billions of dollars ride on these estimates. Suppliers and farmers can also hedge the price as a sort of insurance.

bryant 2y ago

Speculating: Heat (within reason) encourages plant growth provided the other ingredients are there. Plant growth shows up through this luminescence. If a lack of rain can be projected, then the drawdown of ground water can now also be more accurately projected by understanding how much plant growth is taking place. I imagine this can impact emergency prep or other measures e.g around irrigation to get ahead of groundwater depletion resulting in flash crop loss. But that's my take on the value.

xhkkffbf 2y ago

Well, if you make satellites like the Orbiting Carbon Observatory, this is a good reason to make another, more sophisticated version. But you're right that cheaper, more local telemetry may be more than adequate. Heck, you can probably think, "I don't remember the last time it rained..."

dylan604 2y ago

If you're the government wanting to see the status of the whole country very quickly vs waiting for every single local farmer to report their results to be compiled into a larger view, the satellite view is much more efficient. Food production has somewhat of a strategic value that a government wants to know about.

dietr1ch 2y ago
Well, when the government wanted to monitor earthquakes across the whole world they just deployed sensors. Same thing with Sattelites. I don't understand why it wouldn't deploy weather stations and humidity sensors within its own borders.
- dylan604 2y ago
  we have the tech to do it from space now with a single sensing platform vs individual sensors on private land. doesn't take much of an imagination to see why one is preferred over the other. USGS can place their sensors on gov't land and get the readings they need. Department of Ag can't really do the same thing.

rmason 2y ago

If you're not aware of it the government does crop estimates. Its not done solely by satellite, they have teams go out to fields and make spot checks. Now infrared photography can show crop stress but it can't pinpoint the reason. If they can get these genetics into the seed they can know the impact of drought nationwide. They can also send more scouts to these areas to make an educated guess on how bad the drought might be. Billions of dollars ride on these estimates. Suppliers and farmers can also hedge the price as a sort of insurance.