IP Library Granted Patent US 12,271,958
Granted Patent B2
US 12,271,958 · App. 17/892,975 · Granted Apr 8, 2025

Computing risk from a crop damaging factor for a crop on an agronomic field

Inventors: Patricia Ann Carroll (Seattle, WA); Holly Janine Dail (Seattle, WA); Bethany Susan Porter Grabow (Moscow Mills, MO); Ana Malagon (San Francisco, CA); Jerald Keith Pataky (Champaign, IL)
Assignee: CLIMATE LLC
G06Q50/02G06Q10/0635G01W1/06
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 12,271,958
App. No.
17/892,975
Granted
Apr 8, 2025
Kind
B2
Abstract

Systems and methods for determining a risk of damage to a crop on a field are described. In an example embodiment, a method for limiting such damage to a crop includes receiving, for multiple hours, weather data identifying temperature values and humidity values for a geographic location of the field, determining, for the multiple hours, that a temperature value is within a first range of values and a humidity value is within a second range of values and, identifying each of the multiple hours as a risk hour for a disease. The method also includes computing a risk value for the field based on the identified risk hours, determining that the risk value is above a threshold, and determining that the crop on the field is at risk for the disease. The method then includes spraying the crop on the field with a damage mitigating chemical specific to the disease.

Claims (34)

1. A method for limiting damage of a crop on an agronomic field, the method comprising:

receiving, for multiple hours, weather data identifying temperature values and humidity values associated with a geographic location, the multiple hours representative of weather data between a planting day of a crop on one or more agronomic fields at the geographic location and a second day for the crop on the one or more agronomic fields after the planting day;

for each day from the planting day to the second day, determining, by a computing device, for each hour of the multiple hours, that a temperature value is within a first range of values, a humidity value is within a second range of values, and the hour is a threshold number of hour(s) before sunrise or after sunset, and, in response to the temperature value being within the first range, the humidity value being within the second range, and the hour being the threshold number of hour(s) before sunrise or after sunset, identifying said hour of the multiple hours as a risk hour for a disease;

for each of the identified risk hours, weighting an hour value of the hour based on: a difference between a temperature for the hour and a stored optimal temperature and/or a difference between a humidity for the hour and a stored optimal humidity;

computing, by the computing device, for the second day, a risk value for the one or more agronomic fields based, at least in part, on a summation of the weighted hour values for the identified risk hours from the planting day to the second day;

determining, by the computing device, that the risk value is above a risk value threshold and, in response to determining that the risk value is above the risk value threshold, determining that the crop on the one or more agronomic fields is at risk of suffering damage from the disease;

storing, by the computing device, in memory of the computing device, data indicating that the crop on the one or more agronomic fields is at risk of suffering damage from the disease; and

based on the data in the memory indicating that the crop is at risk of suffering damage from the disease, controlling, by an application controller of an implement, the implement on the one or more agronomic fields to spray the crop on the one or more agronomic fields with a damage mitigating chemical specific to the disease.

2. The method of claim 1 , wherein the multiple hours include multiple hours in each of multiple different days between the planting day and the second day.

3. The method of claim 2 , further comprising:

determining, for one or more different hours of the multiple hours, that a temperature value is between a third range of values and, in response, identifying the one or more different hours as an anti-risk hour; and

wherein computing the risk value further comprises subtracting from the summation each of the one or more different hours identified as an anti-risk hour between the planting day and the second day.

4. The method of claim 1 , wherein computing the risk value comprises:

for each of the multiple hours identified as a risk hour, weighting an hour value further based on a growth stage of the crop.

5. The method of claim 1 , wherein computing the risk value includes computing the risk value as an integral of a cumulative disease risk for each day up until the second day, based on:

Id

(

x

)

=

d

=

1

x

c

d

where Id is the integral of the cumulative disease risk x days after planting of the crop and Ca is a cumulative risk disease on day d.

6. The method of claim 5 , further comprising normalizing, by the computing device, the risk value as a function of the integral of cumulative disease risk divided by an integral of cumulative days since the planting day.

7. The method of claim 1 , further comprising:

storing one or more correlations between a first risk value at a particular stage of crop growth and a total yield for the crop; and

computing, using he risk value and the one or more correlations, a quantification of expected damage to the crop based, at least in part, on the risk value for the second day and the one or more correlations.

8. The method of claim 1 , wherein spraying the crop on the one or more agronomic fields and/or the one or more agronomic fields with the damage mitigating chemical includes spraying t the crop on the one or more agronomic fields and/or the one or more agronomic fields with a fungicide during one of V6-V12 growth stages of the crop.

Assignments (4)
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Mar 23, 2026
From: CLIMATE LLC
To: MONSANTO COMPANY
Reel/Frame 075177/0751 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Mar 23, 2026
From: MONSANTO COMPANY
To: MONSANTO TECHNOLOGY LLC
Reel/Frame 075177/0908 →
CHANGE OF NAME Recorded Dec 29, 2022
From: THE CLIMATE CORPORATION
To: CLIMATE LLC
Reel/Frame 062249/0882 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Dec 28, 2022
From: DAIL, HOLLY JANINE; CARROLL, PATRICIA ANN; GRABOW, BETHANY SUSAN PORTER; PATAKY, JERALD KEITH; MALAGON, ANA TERESA
To: THE CLIMATE CORPORATION
Reel/Frame 062221/0546 →
Continuity (2)
Continuation 15820317 · Nov 21, 2017
Related Publication 20220398674A1 · Dec 15, 2022
References Cited (53)
US 8626698B1 · Nikolaev et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 9563852B1 · Wiles · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 11423492B2 · Dail et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 20060282228A1 · Avey · 2006 [cited by applicant]
US 20120123817A1 · Hohenberger · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20140108060A1 · Anderson · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20140189903A1 · Duncan et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20150248720A1 · Brown · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20150278967A1 · Jump · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20160073573A1 · Ethington · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160078569A1 · Ethington · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160078570A1 · Ethington · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160223506A1 · Shriver et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160224703A1 · Shriver · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160232621A1 · Ethington · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20170105335A1 · Xu et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170124463A1 · Chen · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170196171A1 · Xu et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170213141A1 · Xu · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170228475A1 · Aldor-Noiman · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170295732A1 · Skinner · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170311559A1 · Ebert et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170349957A1 · Champagne · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170351790A1 · Farah · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20180181893A1 · Basso · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20190050510A1 · Mewes · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20190138962A1 · Ehlmann · 2019 [cited by applicant]
WO WO2015100023 · 2015 [cited by applicant]
Degree Day Calculation; Aug. 6, 2012; University of Wisconsin-Madison (Year: 2012). [cited by examiner]
A web-based interactive system for risk management of potato late blight in Michigan; Oct. 28, 2007; Wharton et al. (Year: 2007). [cited by examiner]
Earlier occurrence and increased explanatory power of climate for the first incidence of potato late blight caused by Phytophthora infestans in Fennoscandia; May 30, 2017; Lehsten et al (Year: 2017). [cited by examiner]
Epidemiological Studies on Early Blight of Potato under Climate Change and its Co-Relation with Disease Severity; May 10, 2017; Kumar et al (Year: 2017). [cited by examiner]
Research and IPM Models: Diseases; University of California Agriculture & Natural Resources; Oct. 21, 2015 (Year: 2014). [cited by examiner]
The Effect of Climatic Variations on Agricultural Risk; 1985; Parry et al. (Year: 1985). [cited by examiner]
How to Manage Pests: Degree-Days; University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources Jun. 21, 2016 (Year: 2016). [cited by examiner]
Degree-days: and aid in crop and pest management; Wilson et el; Feb. 1983 (Year: 1983). [cited by examiner]
Using Degree Days to Time Treatments for Insect Pests; Murray; Apr. 2008 (Year: 2008). [cited by examiner]
Forecasting Late Blight in Potato Crops of Southern Idaho Using Logistic Regression Analysis; Henderson et al; Aug. 2007 (Year: 2007). [cited by examiner]
Potato Late Blight Management in the Toluca Valley: Field Validation of SimCast Modified for Cultivars with High Field Resistance; Grunwald et al; Oct. 2002 (Year: 2002). [cited by examiner]
Forecasting Models for Potato Late Blight Management—A Review; Singh et al; 2013 (Year: 2013). [cited by examiner]
Using Growing Degree Days to Predict Plant Stages; Miller et al.; Jul. 2001 (Year: 2001). [cited by examiner]
A Web-based Information System for Plant Disease Forecast Based on Weather Data at High Spatial Resolution; Kang et al; Nov. 18, 2009 (Year: 2009). [cited by applicant]
Chilling and forcing model to predict bud burst of crop forest species; Cesaraccio at el; 2005 (Year: 2005). [cited by applicant]
Growing degree hours—a simple, accurate, and precise protocol to approximate growing heat summation for grapevines; Gu; Aug. 2016 (Year: 2016). [cited by applicant]
How to use the Peanut Leaf Spot Advisor; Sep. 2012 (Year: 2012). [cited by applicant]
Cabbage Growth Stages; J. T. Andaloro et al; 1983 (Year: 1983). [cited by applicant]
Moisture Matters; Cannibus Business Times; Jul. 2017 (Year: 2017). [cited by applicant]
Fusarium head blight risk assessment models and DON prediction model; Diane Brown-Rytlewski; Michigan State University (Year: 2008). [cited by applicant]
Paul, P. A., et al., “Influence of Temperature and Relative Humidity on Sporulation of Cercospora zeae-maydis and Expansion of Gray Leaf Spot Lesions on Maize Leaves”, Plant Disease, the Amer. Phyto. Soc., vol. 89, No. … [cited by applicant]
Drake, DW, “Reproductive Success of Two Eucalyptus Hybrid Populations”, I Generalized Seed Output Model and Comparison of Fruit Parameters, Australian Journal of Botany 29(1) 25-35, 1981, 11pgs. [cited by applicant]
Nocco et al., “Enterprise Risk Management: Theory and Practice”, in Journal of applied corporate finance, dated Dec. 7, 2006, 15 pages. [cited by applicant]
Engle, “Risk and Volatility: Econometric Models and Financial Practice”, In: American Economic Review, dated Dec. 8, 2003, 24 pages. [cited by applicant]
Miao et al., “Within-field Variation in Corn Yield and Grain Quality Responses to Nitrogen Fetrilization and Hybrid Selection”, In Agronomy Journal, dated Jan. 2006, 13 pages. [cited by applicant]