Our system is currently under heavy load due to increased usage. We're actively working on upgrades to improve performance. Thank you for your patience.
1997
DOI: 10.1016/s0034-4257(96)00158-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Backscattering behavior and simulation comparison over bare soils using SIR-C/X-SAR and ERASME 1994 data over Orgeval

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
65
2
1

Year Published

2001
2001
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 104 publications
(71 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
3
65
2
1
Order By: Relevance
“…This figure illustrates that s eff is consistently larger at L-band (sites 12-15) than at C-band (sites 1-11), which may be attributed to a failure of the IEM in describing surface roughness as a scale-dependent phenomenon rather than to large in situ differences in roughness, since all fields were relatively smooth and tilled using similar machinery. This discrepancy was already observed by Zribi et al (1997). Based on IEM simulations of SIR-C/X-SAR and ERASME backscatter data, they found that a good coherence could be obtained at L-band, whereas C-band simulations generally tended to overestimate SAR backscattering.…”
Section: Analysis Of Effective Rms Height and Correlation Lengthmentioning
confidence: 77%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This figure illustrates that s eff is consistently larger at L-band (sites 12-15) than at C-band (sites 1-11), which may be attributed to a failure of the IEM in describing surface roughness as a scale-dependent phenomenon rather than to large in situ differences in roughness, since all fields were relatively smooth and tilled using similar machinery. This discrepancy was already observed by Zribi et al (1997). Based on IEM simulations of SIR-C/X-SAR and ERASME backscatter data, they found that a good coherence could be obtained at L-band, whereas C-band simulations generally tended to overestimate SAR backscattering.…”
Section: Analysis Of Effective Rms Height and Correlation Lengthmentioning
confidence: 77%
“…As a consequence, the parameterisation of roughness in terms of s, l, and ACF is problematic (see Verhoest et al (2008) for a topical review) and often reported as being the main error source contributing to poor soil moisture retrieval results (e.g. Rakotoarivony et al, 1996;Zribi et al, 1997;Leconte et al, 2004). Several attempts have been made to enhance conventional backscatter models through a self-affine or fractal surface description (e.g.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Discrepancies with experimental measurements in agricultural areas were observed in several studies (e.g. Zribi et al, 1997;Baghdadi et al, 2006b). …”
Section: N Baghdadi Et Al: C-band Polarimetric Sar Data Using Neuramentioning
confidence: 91%
“…Baghdadi et al, 2004Baghdadi et al, , 2006bBaghdadi et al, , 2011Rakotoarivony et al, 1996;Zribi et al, 1997), with deviations of several decibels which renders the inversion results inaccurate. Baghdadi et al (2006bBaghdadi et al ( , 2011 proposed a semi-empirical calibration of the IEM to improve its performance at C-band.…”
Section: Synthetic Datasetmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The primary advantage of the Oh models is that only one surface parameter (rms height) is required and, when multi-polarised data are available, both the dielectric constant and surface roughness can be inverted without the need for field measurements [101]. Although the model is based on truck-mounted scatterometer measurements, it has been applied successfully to airborne and spaceborne SAR measurements [102]. However, other studies have found the model not to produce such promising results [29,103].…”
Section: Soil Moisture Retrieval Using Semi-empirical Scattering Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%