Title | ||
---|---|---|
Evaluation of Satellite-Based Soil Moisture Products over Four Different Continental In-Situ Measurements. |
Abstract | ||
---|---|---|
Global, near-real-time satellite-based soil moisture (SM) datasets have been developed over recent decades. However, there has been a lack of comparison among different passing times, retrieving algorithms, and sensors between SM products over various regions. In this study, we assessed seven types of SM products (AMSR_A, AMSR_D, ECV_A, ECV_C, ECV_P, SMOS_A, and SMOS_D) over four different continental in-situ networks in North America, the Tibetan Plateau, Western Europe, and Southeastern Australia. Bias, R, root mean square error (RMSE), unbiased root mean square difference (ubRMSD), anomalies, and anomalies R were calculated to explore the agreement between satellite-based SM and in-situ measurements. Taylor diagrams were drawn for an inter-comparison. The results showed that (1) ECV_C was superior both in characterizing the SM temporal variation tendency and absolute value, while ECV_A produced numerous abnormal values over all validation regions. ECV_P was able to basically express the SM variation tendency, except for a few overestimations and underestimations. (2) The ascending data (AMSR_A, SMOS_A) generally outperformed the corresponding descending data (AMSR_D, SMOS_D). (3) AMSR exceeded SMOS in terms of the coefficient of correlation. (4) The validation result of SMOS_D over the NAN and OZN networks was unsatisfactory, with a rather poor correlation for both original data and anomalies. |
Year | DOI | Venue |
---|---|---|
2018 | 10.3390/rs10071161 | REMOTE SENSING |
Keywords | Field | DocType |
satellite-based soil moisture,in-situ measurements,AMSR,SMOS,ECV,evaluation | In situ,Satellite,Remote sensing,Water content,Geology | Journal |
Volume | Issue | ISSN |
10 | 7 | 2072-4292 |
Citations | PageRank | References |
0 | 0.34 | 11 |
Authors | ||
3 |
Name | Order | Citations | PageRank |
---|---|---|---|
Yangxiaoyue Liu | 1 | 1 | 1.72 |
Yaping Yang | 2 | 17 | 5.99 |
Xiafang Yue | 3 | 2 | 1.81 |