Satellite surface soil moisture from SMOS and Aquarius: Assessment for applications in agricultural landscapes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Satellite surface soil moisture has become more widely available in the past five years, with several missions designed specifically for soil moisture measurement now available, including the Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity (SMOS) mission and the Soil Moisture Active/Passive (SMAP) mission. With a wealth of data now available, the challenge is to understand the skill and limitations of the data so they can be used routinely to support monitoring applications and to better understand environmental change. This paper examined two satellite surface soil moisture data sets from the SMOS and Aquarius missions against in situ networks in largely agricultural regions of Canada. The data from both sensors was compared to ground measurements on both an absolute and relative basis. Overall, the root mean squared errors for SMOS were less than 0.10 m 3 m −3 at most sites, and less where the in situ soil moisture was measured at multiple sites within the radiometer footprint (sites in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario). At many sites, SMOS overestimates soil moisture shortly after rainfall events compared to the in situ data; however this was not consistent for each site and each time period. SMOS was found to underestimate drying events compared to the in situ data, however this observation was not consistent from site to site. The Aquarius soil moisture data showed higher root mean squared errors in areas where there were more frequent wetting and drying cycles. Overall, both data sets, and SMOS in particular, showed a stable and consistent pattern of capturing surface soil moisture over time.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".