Published in

Elsevier, Remote Sensing of Environment, (134), p. 1-11

DOI: 10.1016/j.rse.2013.02.016

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Inter-comparison of microwave satellite soil moisture retrievals over the Murrumbidgee Basin, southeast Australia

This paper is available in a repository.
This paper is available in a repository.

Full text: Download

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Red circle
Postprint: archiving forbidden
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

The use of satellite-based soil moisture retrievals for hydrologic, meteorological and climatological applications is advancing significantly due to increasing capability and temporal coverage of current and future missions. Characterisation of the relative skill of soil moisture products from different satellite sensors on a common spatial grid is crucial to achieve synergetic applications. This paper therefore evaluates three soil moisture products from AMSR-E (Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer — Earth Observing System), ASCAT (Advanced Scatterometer) and SMOS (Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity) in absolute soil moisture units and on a common grid, against in-situ observations from southeast Australia. Before renormalisation, the three products yield correlations of 0.63–0.71 and a similar root-mean-square difference (RMSD) in the order of 0.1 m3 m− 3, although showing different levels of error contributions from bias, variance and correlations. The results are compared with land and precipitation data to investigate the sensitivity of their errors to land surface features. Three renormalisation strategies – minimum–maximum matching, mean/standard-deviation (μ–σ) matching and cumulative distribution function (CDF) matching – are considered for correcting systematic differences between ground and satellite data. The renormalised satellite data is found to retain RMSDs of 0.04–0.06 m3 m− 3 on average. The CDF method produces only marginal further improvements to correlations (0.67–0.75) and RMSDs compared to the μ–σ approach. The renormalisations by μ–σ and CDF methods also bring three products into better agreements with each other, but lead to strong correlations between RMSD and the dynamic range of in-situ soil moisture.