2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.rse.2018.05.028
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The influence of snow microstructure on dual-frequency radar measurements in a tundra environment

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

7
90
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

3
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 59 publications
(97 citation statements)
references
References 52 publications
7
90
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Tundra snow is typically composed of fine-grained wind slab layers overlying depth hoar composed of large faceted grains. Under these conditions, it is likely that two layer snow simulations would be necessary [44]. However, also in the case of NoSREx data, early season radar observations, and thus retrievals of both p active ex,eff and SWE, were assumed to be influenced by melt-refreeze crusts in the base of the snowpack; causing the high backscattering values seen in the early season (Figure 1).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Tundra snow is typically composed of fine-grained wind slab layers overlying depth hoar composed of large faceted grains. Under these conditions, it is likely that two layer snow simulations would be necessary [44]. However, also in the case of NoSREx data, early season radar observations, and thus retrievals of both p active ex,eff and SWE, were assumed to be influenced by melt-refreeze crusts in the base of the snowpack; causing the high backscattering values seen in the early season (Figure 1).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1; Derksen et al, 2009). As depth hoar and wind slab have strongly diverging microwave scattering properties (Hall et al, 1991), the relative proportion of each strongly influences Ku-band radar backscatter (Yueh et al, 2009;King et al, 2015King et al, , 2018. Knowledge of how layers vary within Arctic snowpacks is therefore critical to the assessment of uncertainty in radar-based retrievals of snow water equivalent (SWE) and forward models of snow radiative transfer.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A minimal difference in backscatter was observed between the forested (S20) and non-forested (S6) sites with snow in Figure 6a, while a greater difference, up to 4.5 dB and 6 dB for co-and cross-polarized backscatter, was observed between the forested (S21) and non-forested (S9) sites without snow in Figure 6b; the larger cross-polarized difference was a result of enhanced volume scattering in the forest canopy. Because the SWE at S20 was 48 mm greater than that at S6, greater backscatter would be expected at the forested site, especially given the larger proportion of wind slab present in the non-forested site, which would have reduced sensitivity to the SWE [56], but this was not the case. This indicated that the forest canopy partially attenuated the signal from the snow beneath.…”
Section: Angular Backscatter Response From the Forested And Non-foresmentioning
confidence: 98%