2018
DOI: 10.3390/geosciences8040127
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Estimating Regional Scale Hydroclimatic Risk Conditions from the Soil Moisture Active-Passive (SMAP) Satellite

Abstract: Satellite soil moisture is a critical variable for identifying susceptibility to hydroclimatic risks such as drought, dryness, and excess moisture. Satellite soil moisture data from the Soil Moisture Active/Passive (SMAP) mission was used to evaluate the sensitivity to hydroclimatic risk events in Canada. The SMAP soil moisture data sets in general capture relative moisture trends with the best estimates from the passive-only derived soil moisture and little difference between the data at different spatial res… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

3
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Future work including spatial gridded comparison between these satellite products and reanalysis products, such as the recently released fifth generation of ECMWF reanalysis, ERA5 [75], could reveal more information about the spatial characteristics of these products and the consistency among these different products. Finally, we note that a more recent L-band product, the Soil Moisture Active and Passive (SMAP) [20], launched in 2015, has been shown to capture relative soil moisture trends well over Canada [76]. We anticipate that future work comparing IC and SMAP for a more recent period should evaluate which of these products performs best for monitoring SM variability across Canadian agricultural regions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…Future work including spatial gridded comparison between these satellite products and reanalysis products, such as the recently released fifth generation of ECMWF reanalysis, ERA5 [75], could reveal more information about the spatial characteristics of these products and the consistency among these different products. Finally, we note that a more recent L-band product, the Soil Moisture Active and Passive (SMAP) [20], launched in 2015, has been shown to capture relative soil moisture trends well over Canada [76]. We anticipate that future work comparing IC and SMAP for a more recent period should evaluate which of these products performs best for monitoring SM variability across Canadian agricultural regions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…This is likely because these data are satellite derived surface soil moisture and not root zone soil moisture that is needed to measure the effects of water deficits on vegetation. While these components of the soil matrix are correlated, surface soil moisture exhibits higher temporal variability due to land-atmosphere interactions that drive wetting and drying events (Champagne et al 2018). However, SM2 and to a lesser extent SM4 were important predictors of D3/D4 drought onset.…”
Section: ) Satellite Soil Moisture Percentilesmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Another method uses satellite‐based vegetation parameters to monitor plant response to drought conditions (Klisch & Atzberger, 2016; Liu et al., 2021), sometimes in combination with satellite‐derived land surface temperatures (Karnieli et al., 2010; Son et al., 2012). Other effective earth observation techniques use the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites to estimate terrestrial water storage anomalies (Houborg et al., 2012; K. S. Kumar et al., 2021; Thomas et al., 2014; Tian et al., 2021) or satellites operating in the microwave spectrum to estimate soil moisture anomalies (Champagne et al., 2018; Narasimhan & Srinivasan, 2005; Oozeer et al., 2020; Tao et al., 2021).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…S. Kumar et al, 2021;Thomas et al, 2014;Tian et al, 2021) or satellites operating in the microwave spectrum to estimate soil moisture anomalies (Champagne et al, 2018;Narasimhan & Srinivasan, 2005;Oozeer et al, 2020;Tao et al, 2021).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%