Journal cover Journal topic
Hydrology and Earth System Sciences An interactive open-access journal of the European Geosciences Union
Journal topic

Journal metrics

IF value: 5.153
IF5.153
IF 5-year value: 5.460
IF 5-year
5.460
CiteScore value: 7.8
CiteScore
7.8
SNIP value: 1.623
SNIP1.623
IPP value: 4.91
IPP4.91
SJR value: 2.092
SJR2.092
Scimago H <br class='widget-line-break'>index value: 123
Scimago H
index
123
h5-index value: 65
h5-index65
Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2019-549
© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2019-549
© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

  18 Nov 2019

18 Nov 2019

Review status
This discussion paper is a preprint. It has been under review for the journal Hydrology and Earth System Sciences (HESS). The manuscript was not accepted for further review after discussion.

Blending SMAP, Noah and In Situ Soil Moisture Using Multiple Methods

Ning Zhang1, Steven M. Quiring1, and Trent W. Ford2 Ning Zhang et al.
  • 1Department of Geography, Ohio State University
  • 2Illinois State Water Survey, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Abstract. Soil moisture can be obtained from in-situ measurements, satellite observations, and model simulations. This study evaluates different methods of combining model, satellite, and in-situ soil moisture data to provide an accurate and spatially-continuous soil moisture product. Three independent soil moisture datasets are used, including an in situ-based product that uses regression kriging (RK) with precipitation, SMAP L4 soil moisture, and model-simulated soil moisture from the Noah model as part of the North American Land Data Assimilation System. Triple collocation (TC), relative error variance (REV), and RK were used to estimate the error variance of each parent dataset, based on which the least squares weighting (LSW) was applied to blend the parent datasets. These results were also compared with that using simple average (AVE). The results indicated no significant differences between blended soil moisture datasets using errors estimated from TC, REV or RK. Moreover, the LSW did not outperform AVE. The SMAP L4 data have a significant negative bias (−18 %) comparing with in-situ measurements, and in-situ measurements are valuable for improving the accuracy of hybrid results. In addition, datasets using anomalies and percentiles have smaller errors than using volumetric water content, mainly due to the reduced bias. Finally, the in situ-based soil moisture and the simple-averaged product from in situ-based and Noah soil moisture are the two optimal datasets for soil moisture mapping. The in situ-based product performs better when the sample density is high, while the simple-averaged product performs better when the station density is low, or measurement sites are less representative.

Ning Zhang et al.

Interactive discussion

Status: closed
Status: closed
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement

Interactive discussion

Status: closed
Status: closed
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement

Ning Zhang et al.

Viewed

Total article views: 562 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total Supplement BibTeX EndNote
363 168 31 562 51 30 37
  • HTML: 363
  • PDF: 168
  • XML: 31
  • Total: 562
  • Supplement: 51
  • BibTeX: 30
  • EndNote: 37
Views and downloads (calculated since 18 Nov 2019)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 18 Nov 2019)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 452 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 451 with geography defined and 1 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 

Cited

Saved

No saved metrics found.

Discussed

No discussed metrics found.
Latest update: 28 Sep 2020
Publications Copernicus
Download
Citation