Engineering topics

J P Walker

Publications and source records attributed to J P Walker.

3 records

NASA NTRS2021

Validation of Soil Moisture Data Products from the NASA SMAP Mission

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)Soil Moisture Active Passive(SMAP) mission has been validatingits soil moisture (SM) products since the start of data production onMarch 31, 2015. Prior to launch, the mission defined a set of criteria for core validation sites (CVS) that enable the testing of the key mission SM accuracy requirement(unbiased root-mean-square error <0.04 m3/m3). Thevalidation approach also includes other (“sparse network”) in situSM measurements, satellite SM products, model-based SM products, and field experiments. Over the past six years, the SMAP SM products have been analyzed with respect to thesereference data,and the analysis approaches themselves have been scrutinizedin an effort to best understand the products’ performance. Validation of themost recent SMAP Level 2 and 3 SMretrievalproducts (R17000) shows that the L-band (1.4 GHz) radiometer-based SM record continues to meet mission requirements. The products aregenerallyconsistentwith SM retrievals from the European Space Agency (ESA)Soil Moisture Ocean Salinity mission, althoughthere aredifferencesin some regions. The high-resolution (3-km) SM retrieval product,generated by combining Copernicus Sentinel-1 data with SMAP observations,performswithin expectations. Currently, however,there is limited availability of3-kmCVSdatato support extensive validation at this spatial scale. The most recent (version 5)SMAP Level4 SMdata assimilation productprovidingsurface and root-zone SM with complete spatio-temporal coverageat 9-km resolution also meets performance requirements. The SMAP SM validation program will continue throughout the mission life; futureplans include expanding ittoforestedand high-latituderegions

SMAP↗

NASA NTRS2017

Estimating Surface Soil Moisture from SMAP Observations Using a Neural Network Technique

A Neural Network (NN) algorithm was developed to estimate global surface soil moisture for April 2015 to March 2017 with a 2-3 day repeat frequency using passive microwave observations from the Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP) satellite, surface soil temperatures from the NASA Goddard Earth Observing System Model version 5 (GEOS-5) land modeling system, and Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer-based vegetation water content. The NN was trained on GEOS-5 soil moisture target data, making the NN estimates consistent with the GEOS-5 climatology, such that they may ultimately be assimilated into this model without further bias correction. Evaluated against in situ soil moisture measurements, the average unbiased root mean square error (ubRMSE), correlation and anomaly correlation of the NN retrievals were 0.037 m(exp. 3)m(exp. -3), 0.70 and 0.66, respectively, against SMAP core validation site measurements and 0.026 m(exp. 3)m(exp. -3), 0.58 and 0.48, respectively, against International Soil Moisture Network (ISMN) measurements. At the core validation sites, the NN retrievals have a significantly higher skill than the GEOS-5 model estimates and a slightly lower correlation skill than the SMAP Level-2 Passive (L2P) product. The feasibility of the NN method was reflected by a lower ubRMSE compared to the L2P retrievals as well as a higher skill when ancillary parameters in physically-based retrievals were uncertain. Against ISMN measurements, the skill of the two retrieval products was more comparable. A triple collocation analysis against Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer 2 (AMSR2) and Advanced Scatterometer (ASCAT) soil moisture retrievals showed that the NN and L2P retrieval errors have a similar spatial distribution, but the NN retrieval errors are generally lower in densely vegetated regions and transition zones.

Soil Moisture Remote Sensing↗

NASA NTRS2017

Evaluating Soil Moisture Retrievals from ESA's SMOS and NASA's SMAP Brightness Temperature Datasets

Two satellites are currently monitoring surface soil moisture (SM) using L-band observations: SMOS (Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity), a joint ESA (European Space Agency), CNES (Centre national d'tudes spatiales), and CDTI (the Spanish government agency with responsibility for space) satellite launched on November 2, 2009 and SMAP (Soil Moisture Active Passive), a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) satellite successfully launched in January 2015. In this study, we used a multilinear regression approach to retrieve SM from SMAP data to create a global dataset of SM, which is consistent with SM data retrieved from SMOS. This was achieved by calibrating coefficients of the regression model using the CATDS (Centre Aval de Traitement des Donnes) SMOS Level 3 SM and the horizontally and vertically polarized brightness temperatures (TB) at 40 deg incidence angle, over the 2013 - 2014 period. Next, this model was applied to SMAP L3 TB data from Apr 2015 to Jul 2016. The retrieved SM from SMAP (referred to here as SMAP_Reg) was compared to: (i) the operational SMAP L3 SM (SMAP_SCA), retrieved using the baseline Single Channel retrieval Algorithm (SCA); and (ii) the operational SMOSL3 SM, derived from the multiangular inversion of the L-MEB model (L-MEB algorithm) (SMOSL3). This inter-comparison was made against in situ soil moisture measurements from more than 400 sites spread over the globe, which are used here as a reference soil moisture dataset. The in situ observations were obtained from the International Soil Moisture Network (ISMN; https:ismn.geo.tuwien.ac.at) in North of America (PBO_H2O, SCAN, SNOTEL, iRON, and USCRN), in Australia (Oznet), Africa (DAHRA), and in Europe (REMEDHUS, SMOSMANIA, FMI, and RSMN). The agreement was analyzed in terms of four classical statistical criteria: Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE),Bias, Unbiased RMSE (UnbRMSE), and correlation coefficient (R). Results of the comparison of these various products with in situ observations show that the performance of both SMAP products i.e. SMAP_SCA and SMAP_Reg is 48 similar and marginally better to that of the SMOSL3 product particularly over the PBO_H2O, SCAN, and USCRN sites. However, SMOSL3 SM was closer to the in situ observations over the DAHRA and Oznet sites. We found that the correlation between all three datasets and in situ measurements is best (R 0.80) over the Oznet sites and worst (R 0.58) over the SNOTEL sites for SMAP_SCA and over the DAHRA and SMOSMANIA sites (R 0.51 and R 0.45 for SMAP_Reg and SMOSL3, respectively). The Bias values showed that all products are generally dry, except over RSMN, DAHRA, and Oznet (and FMI for SMAP_SCA). Finally, our analysis provided interesting insights that can be useful to improve the consistency between SMAP and SMOS datasets.

SMOS↗