Analyzing Effects of Crops on SMAP Satellite-based Soil Moisture using a Rainfall-Runoff Model in the U.S. Corn Belt
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L-band microwave satellite missions provide soil moisture information potentially useful for streamflow and hence flood predictions. However, these observations are also sensitive to the presence of vegetation that makes satellite soil moisture estimations prone to errors. In this study, the authors evaluate satellite soil moisture estimations from SMAP (Soil Moisture Active Passive) and SMOS (Soil Moisture Ocean Salinity), and two distributed hydrologic models with measurements from in~situ sensors in the Corn Belt state of Iowa, a region dominated by annual row crops of corn and soybean. First, the authors compare model and satellite soil moisture products across Iowa using in~situ data for more than 30 stations. Then, they compare satellite soil moisture products with state-wide model-based fields to identify regions of low and high agreement. Finally, the authors analyze and explain the resulting spatial patterns with MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) vegetation indices and SMAP vegetation optical depth. The results indicate that satellite soil moisture estimations are drier than those provided by the hydrologic model and the spatial bias depends on the intensity of row-crop agriculture. The work highlights the importance of developing a revised SMAP algorithm for regions of intensive row-crop agriculture to increase SMAP utility in the real-time streamflow predictions.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".