4.7 Article

A Comparative Study of the SMAP Passive Soil Moisture Product With Existing Satellite-Based Soil Moisture Products

期刊

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TGRS.2017.2656859

关键词

Level 2 radiometer-only soil moisture product (L2_SM_P); microwave remote sensing; soil moisture; Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP); Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity (SMOS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The NASA Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP) satellite mission was launched on January 31, 2015 to provide global mapping of high-resolution soil moisture and freeze-thaw state every 2-3 days using an L-band (active) radar and an L-band (passive) radiometer. The Level 2 radiometer-only soil moisture product (L2_SM_P) provides soil moisture estimates posted on a 36-km Earth-fixed grid using brightness temperature observations from descending passes. This paper provides the first comparison of the validated-release L2_SM_P product with soil moisture products provided by the Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity (SMOS), Aquarius, Advanced Scatterometer (ASCAT), and Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer 2 (AMSR2) missions. This comparison was conducted as part of the SMAP calibration and validation efforts. SMAP and SMOS appear most similar among the five soil moisture products considered in this paper, overall exhibiting the smallest unbiased root-mean-square difference and highest correlation. Overall, SMOS tends to be slightly wetter than SMAP, excluding forests where some differences are observed. SMAP and Aquarius can only be compared for a little more than two months; they compare well, especially over low to moderately vegetated areas. SMAP and ASCAT show similar overall trends and spatial patterns with ASCAT providing wetter soil moistures than SMAP over moderate to dense vegetation. SMAP and AMSR2 largely disagree in their soil moisture trends and spatial patterns; AMSR2 exhibits an overall dry bias, while desert areas are observed to be wetter than SMAP.

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