4.7 Article

A Method to Assess the Performance of SAR-Derived Surface Soil Moisture Products

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/JSTARS.2021.3071380

关键词

Soil moisture; Soil measurements; Soil; Moisture measurement; Synthetic aperture radar; Sensors; Moisture; Land surface; moisture measurement; remote sensing; soil moisture

资金

  1. Soils Training and Research Studentships Centre for Doctoral Training (STARS CDT)
  2. NERC [1948251] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The article introduces the method of using synthetic aperture radar technology for high spatial resolution mapping of soil moisture, and compares and studies the verification at different depths, the results show that verification at different depths can improve accuracy.
Synthetic aperture radar (SAR) is a remote sensing technique for mapping of soil moisture with high spatial resolution. C-band SAR can resolve features at field scale, or better, but responds to moisture only within the top 1 to 2 cm of the soil. When validating SAR-derived soil moisture products against standard in situ measurements at 5 to 10 cm depth, the greater moisture variability at the soil surface may be inaccurately categorized as measurement error. An alternative method was developed where the C-band SAR product is validated against soil moisture simulated at 2 cm depth by the HYDRUS-1D model. This reproduces soil moisture depth profiles from daily meteorological observations, leaf area index, and soil hydraulic parameters. The model was fitted at 13 COSMOS-UK sites so that the model output at 10 cm depth closely reproduced the cosmic ray neutron sensor data. At ten of the sites studied, there was an improvement of up to 8% in root-mean-squared difference by validating the Copernicus surface soil moisture (SSM) product at 2 cm compared to 10 cm. This suggests that Copernicus SSM and other C-band SAR surface soil moisture algorithms may be more accurate than have hitherto been acknowledged.

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