4.7 Article

Using ENVISAT ASAR Global Mode Data for Surface Soil Moisture Retrieval Over Oklahoma, USA

期刊

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TGRS.2008.2004711

关键词

Change detection; ScanSAR; scatterometer; soil moisture; synthetic aperture radar (SAR)

资金

  1. European Space Agency (ESA)
  2. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [P16515-N10]
  3. Austrian Research Promotion Agency (FFG) [AO 356, ALR-OEWP-CO-413/07]
  4. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [P16515] Funding Source: Austrian Science Fund (FWF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The advanced synthetic aperture radar (ASAR) on-board of the satellite ENVISAT can be operated in global monitoring (GM) mode. ASAR GM mode has delivered the first global multiyear C-band backscatter data set in HH polarization at a spatial resolution of 1 km. This paper investigates if ASAR GM can be used for retrieving soil moisture using a change detection approach over large regions. A method previously developed for the European Remote Sensing (ERS) scatterometer is adapted for use with ASAR GM and tested over Oklahoma, USA. The ASAR-GM-derived relative soil moisture index is compared to 50-km ERS soil moisture data and pointlike in situ measurements from the Oklahoma MESONET. Even though the scale gap from ASAR GM to the ill situ measurements is less pronounced than in the case of the ERS scatterometer, the correlation for ASAR against the in situ measurements is, in general, somewhat weaker than for the ERS scatterometer. The analysis suggests that this is mainly due to the much higher noise level of ASAR GM compared to the ERS scatterometer. Therefore, sonic spatial averaging to 3-10 km is recommended to reduce the noise of the ASAR C:NI soil moisture images. Nevertheless, the study demonstrates that ASAR GM allows resolving spatial details in the soil moisture patterns not observable in the ERS scatterometer measurements while still retaining the basic capability of the ERS scatterometer to capture temporal trends over large areas.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据