4.7 Article

Evaluation of 18 satellite- and model-based soil moisture products using in situ measurements from 826 sensors

期刊

HYDROLOGY AND EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCES
卷 25, 期 1, 页码 17-40

出版社

COPERNICUS GESELLSCHAFT MBH
DOI: 10.5194/hess-25-17-2021

关键词

-

资金

  1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' International Center for Integrated Water Resources Management (ICIWaRM)
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41850410492]
  3. NASA Soil Moisture Cal/Val Activities [NNX14AH92G]
  4. NOAA's Modernizing Observation Operator and Error Assessment for Assimilating In-situ and Remotely Sensed Snow/Soil Moisture Mea-surements into NWM project [NA19OAR4590199]
  5. European Research Council (ERC) DRY-2-DRY project [715254]
  6. Belgian Science Policy Office (BELSPO) STEREO III ALBERI project [SR/00/373]
  7. ESA CCI program
  8. ESA's IDEAS+ project
  9. ESA's QA4EO project
  10. NASA SMAP Science Team
  11. European Research Council (ERC) [715254] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)
  12. NASA [682446, NNX14AH92G] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the temporal dynamics of 18 state-of-the-art soil moisture products, finding that the use of the Soil Wetness Index smoothing filter improved performance for all satellite products. Among the single-sensor satellite products, the L-band-based SMAPL3ESWI performed the best; among the open-loop models, HBV-MSWEP showed the best performance; and among the models with satellite data assimilation, HBV-MSWEP+SMAPL3E performed the best.
Information about the spatiotemporal variability of soil moisture is critical for many purposes, including monitoring of hydrologic extremes, irrigation scheduling, and prediction of agricultural yields. We evaluated the temporal dynamics of 18 state-of-the-art (quasi-)global near-surface soil moisture products, including six based on satellite retrievals, six based on models without satellite data assimilation (referred to hereafter as open-loop models), and six based on models that assimilate satellite soil moisture or brightness temperature data. Seven of the products are introduced for the first time in this study: one multi-sensor merged satellite product called MeMo (Merged soil Moisture) and six estimates from the HBV (Hydrologiska Byrans Vattenbalansavdelning) model with three precipitation inputs (ERA5, IMERG, and MSWEP) with and without assimilation of SMAPL3E satellite retrievals, respectively. As reference, we used in situ soil moisture measurements between 2015 and 2019 at 5 cm depth from 826 sensors, located primarily in the USA and Europe. The 3-hourly Pearson correlation (R) was chosen as the primary performance metric. We found that application of the Soil Wetness Index (SWI) smoothing filter resulted in improved performance for all satellite products. The best-to-worst performance ranking of the four single-sensor satellite products was SMAPL3E(SWI), SMOSSWI, AMSR2(SWI), and ASCAT(SWI), with the L-band-based SMAPL3ESWI (median R of 0.72) outperforming the others at 50% of the sites. Among the two multi-sensor satellite products (MeMo and ESA-CCISWI), MeMo performed better on average (median R of 0.72 versus 0.67), probably due to the inclusion of SMAPL3ESWI. The best-to-worst performance ranking of the six openloop models was HBV-MSWEP, HBV-ERA5, ERA5-Land, HBV-IMERG, VIC-PGF, and GLDAS-Noah. This ranking largely reflects the quality of the precipitation forcing. HBV-MSWEP (median R of 0.78) performed best not just among the open-loop models but among all products. The calibration of HBV improved the median R by C0 :12 on average compared to random parameters, highlighting the importance of model calibration. The best-to-worst performance ranking of the six models with satellite data assimilation was HBV-MSWEP+SMAPL3E, HBV-ERA5+SMAPL3E, GLEAM, SMAPL4, HBV-IMERG+SMAPL3E, and ERA5. The assimilation of SMAPL3E retrievals into HBV-IMERG improved the median R by C0:06, suggesting that data assimilation yields significant benefits at the global scale.

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