MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2988349362 · doi:10.1080/01431161.2019.1685715

Impact of temporal variations in vegetation optical depth and vegetation temperature on L-band passive soil moisture retrievals over a tropical forest using <i>in-situ</i> information

2019· article· en· W2988349362 on OpenAlexaff
Alejandro Monsiváis-Huertero, Juan Carlos Hernández-Sánchez, José Carlos Jiménez-Escalona, J. Mauricio Galeana-Pizaña, Daniel Enrique Constantino-Recillas, Aura Citlalli Torres-Gómez, Ramata Magagi, Kalifa Goı̈ta, Stéphane Couturier

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Remote Sensing · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Moisture and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceVegetation (pathology)Water contentRadiometerRemote sensingPrecipitationIn situBiosphereAtmospheric sciencesBrightness temperatureBrightnessMeteorologyGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity (SMOS) and Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP) missions provide estimates of soil moisture (SM) at similar spatial resolutions using L-band brightness temperatures (TB). These missions meet the requirement of SM retrievals with an unbiased root-mean-square difference (ubRMSD) < 0.04 (m 3 m−3) compared to in-situ measurements over most of the ecosystems; however, their SM estimates over forests present an ubRMSD > 0.10 (m 3 m−3). In this paper, we compared the SM retrievals from the SMOS and SMAP SM products with in-situ SM over a tropical forest in Southern Mexico. The L-band passive SM retrievals were evaluated in terms of four statistical metrics: root-mean-square difference (RMSD), bias, ubRMSD, and correlation coefficient (r). In-situ measurements of SM, soil and vegetation temperatures, precipitation, soil surface roughness, tree heights, diameters at the breast height of trunks, and forest cover fraction were collected during a field campaign from 6 January to 14 June 2015 in the Biosphere Reserve of Calakmul, Mexico, covering two areas of about 40 km × 40 km each. The comparison between SM retrievals from SMOS and SMAP and in-situ SM showed an RMSD ranging from 0.107 to 0.322 (m 3 m−3) and an ubRMSD from 0.049 to 0.128 (m 3 m−3). Overall, the SMAP SM estimates showed higher values of r and were closer to in-situ SM. Because the SMAP and SMOS radiometers performed very similar, these differences are due to the values assigned to the vegetation optical depth (τ), the scattering albedo (ω), and the representation of the dynamics in vegetation and soil temperatures in the SMOS and SMAP retrieval algorithm. Based on an optimization process, we estimated simultaneously optimal ω and τ values for the tropical forest by using TB observations from SMAP and SMOS radiometers.The optimal value of ω was 0.0655 for the tropical forest, and constant over the study period. In contrast, the optimal values of τ showed to be variant on time and ranging between 1.0 and 1.7, with an averaged value of 1.4 and a standard deviation of 0.24. When applying the optimal values of ω and τ and in-situ soil and vegetation temperatures, the SM retrievals showed an ubRMSD of 0.035–0.070 (m 3 m −3), improving the SM retrievals about 45%. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the effect of the uncertainties in τ, ω, and soil and vegetation temperatures on the estimates of TB. It was found that vegetation temperature (Tveg) was the most sensitive parameter, with r higher than 0.70 for both polarizations in TB. When comparing in-situ Tveg and surface temperature values used in the SMAP and SMOS SM retrieval algorithms, differences up to 10 K were observed, affecting the SM estimates. The results presented in this paper could be useful in the preparation of the SMAP Calibration/Validation Experiment 2019, aiming at improving SM retrievals over forests.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.331
Threshold uncertainty score0.487

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Remote SensingSame topicSoil Moisture and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207