2021
DOI: 10.1109/jstars.2021.3121206
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Validation of SMAP Soil Moisture at Terrestrial National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) Sites Show Potential for Soil Moisture Retrieval in Forested Areas

Abstract: Soil moisture influences forest health, fire occurrence and extent, and insect and pathogen impacts, creating a need for regular, globally extensive soil moisture measurements that can only be achieved by satellite-based sensors, such as NASA's soil moisture active passive (SMAP). However, SMAP data for forested regions, which account for ∼20% of land cover globally, are flagged as unreliable due to interference from vegetation water content, and forests were underrepresented in previous validation efforts, pr… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
7
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 61 publications
(90 reference statements)
3
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Whereas, the variation in the estimation for CYGNSS (80% CI = 0.046, 0.075) and for the SMAP (80% CI = 0.036, 0.070) are close. It can be found that the performance of SMAP are perfectly consistent with previous sparse network validation report (Ayres et al 2021), median ubRMSD between CYGNSS and SMAP is 0.049 cm 3 cm − 3 , which is also in line with previous studies (Chew and Small 2018; Al-Khaldi et al 2019; Dong and Jin 2021), and veri es the correctness of our data preprocessing and metric calculation. In comparison to the relative metrics calculated from the raw time series, the R 2 and ubRMSD values of short-anomalies time series is smaller since the processing of sliding averaging screens the seasonal cycle, while the CYGNSS still shows large uncertainty.…”
Section: Relative Evaluation Of Ssm Against Ground Observationssupporting
confidence: 91%
“…Whereas, the variation in the estimation for CYGNSS (80% CI = 0.046, 0.075) and for the SMAP (80% CI = 0.036, 0.070) are close. It can be found that the performance of SMAP are perfectly consistent with previous sparse network validation report (Ayres et al 2021), median ubRMSD between CYGNSS and SMAP is 0.049 cm 3 cm − 3 , which is also in line with previous studies (Chew and Small 2018; Al-Khaldi et al 2019; Dong and Jin 2021), and veri es the correctness of our data preprocessing and metric calculation. In comparison to the relative metrics calculated from the raw time series, the R 2 and ubRMSD values of short-anomalies time series is smaller since the processing of sliding averaging screens the seasonal cycle, while the CYGNSS still shows large uncertainty.…”
Section: Relative Evaluation Of Ssm Against Ground Observationssupporting
confidence: 91%
“…Thereafter, the objective was broadened to include areas outside of the original validation domain, including forests. The mission is currently engaged in exploring the improvement and validation of SMAP SM products over forested areas through field experiments [52], [161], an added focus on forested candidate CVS (see Table III) and other networks, such as the National Ecological Observatory Network [53]. Furthermore, the effort to expand the validation domain includes accounting for the complex soil composition of the boreal and arctic regions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Surfaces with permanent ice and snow, urban areas, wetlands, and areas with above-ground vegetation water content (VWC) greater than 5 kg/m 2 are excluded from the formal accuracy requirements and identified with a nonzero retrieval quality flag [1]. In recent years, the SMAP SM algorithm research has included improving the quality of SM retrievals in more densely vegetated regions, which has resulted in validation activities in forested areas [52], [53].…”
Section: Smap Sm Data Productsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, this study intends to examine the accuracy of SMAP in forested regions. Accordingly, the SMAP quality flags were not applied in this study (similar to the study detailed in [37]).…”
Section: Smap Soil Moisture Data Productmentioning
confidence: 99%