1979
DOI: 10.1029/jc084ic09p05699
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effect of surface roughness on the microwave emission from soils

Abstract: The effect of surface roughness on the brightness temperature of a moist terrain has been studied through the modification of Fresnel reflection coefficient and using the radiative transfer equation. The modification involves introduction of a single parameter to characterize the roughness. It is shown that this parameter depends on both the surface height variance and the horizontal scale of the roughness. Model calculations are in good quantitative agreement with the observed dependence of the brightness tem… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
286
0
4

Year Published

1998
1998
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 532 publications
(312 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
4
286
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…The dielectric constants were calculated using [20] based on the soil texture and density and an assumed salinity of 2 ppt for the soil water, which is reasonable for irrigated soils. A minimal value of 0.1 was assumed for the roughness parameter to account for the effects of surface roughness on the emission [21]. The results of the calculation are presented in Fig.…”
Section: ) Prediction Using a Radiative Transfer Modelmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…The dielectric constants were calculated using [20] based on the soil texture and density and an assumed salinity of 2 ppt for the soil water, which is reasonable for irrigated soils. A minimal value of 0.1 was assumed for the roughness parameter to account for the effects of surface roughness on the emission [21]. The results of the calculation are presented in Fig.…”
Section: ) Prediction Using a Radiative Transfer Modelmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…Inversion for the soil roughness parameter HR from 10 radiometer measurements above the soil-only setup (Step 2 of the layer experiment, see Figure 4) gave a value of 0.49, which corresponds to a standard deviation of the surface height σR of 0.012 m based on the formulation proposed by Choudhury et al [34] or a σR of 0.013 m if we used the formulation of Wigneron et al [12]. It should be noted that the inversion was performed in a large parameter space (0 < HR < 1), which ensured finding the global optimum.…”
Section: Soil Roughness Parametermentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Nonetheless, several simulations were performed to evaluate the differences with other methods: Rayleigh approximation for an ideal needle ( Figure A2a), Rayleigh approximation for a needle (Figure A2b), and the GRG approximation for a needle ( Figure A2c). Additionally, the leaves-soil scattering mechanism was evaluated using the same scattering methods for the leaves, and the Choudhury method [35] to account for the electromagnetic interaction with the soil (Figures A2d-f). These simulations show that there are several differences: (a) A larger dynamic range of the co-polar reflectivity over leaves using the GRG method (~30 dB) as compared to that obtained with the Rayleigh approximation for an ideal needle (~20 dB); and (b) both the cross-and the co-polar reflectivities for leaves-soil interactions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A much lower tree density for a biomass density of 100 t/ha (725 trees/ha instead ~2,700 trees/ha as in [32] for a tree height ~20 m) was required to make the simulations feasible. The electromagnetic models selected for the expression of the bistatic scattering matrices were the Semi-Exact solution for the branches S [33], the Generalized Rayleigh-Gans (GRG) approximation for a needle in the case of leaves S [34], and the Choudhury method for the soil S [35]. The Semi-Exact solution was selected because the radii of curvature of the branches of Northern Sweden forests is not an order of magnitude larger than the signals wavelength used in the simulations (λ = 19 cm).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation