the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Downscaling satellite-derived soil moisture in the Three North region using ensemble machine learning and multiple-source knowledge integration
Abstract. Soil moisture plays a crucial role in hydrological and ecological systems. While remote sensing has advanced large-scale soil moisture monitoring, current satellite products often face spatial resolution limitations. This study presents a reliable framework for downscaling satellite-derived soil moisture, leveraging ensemble machine learning and multiple knowledge sources. Our approach efficiently converges outputs from diverse machine learning algorithms through Bayesian model, harnessing spatiotemporal domains and point-wise data. Covering approximately five million square kilometres in the Three Northern region of China, our model generates 1-km daily soil moisture maps, accurately reflecting soil water content patterns and showing spatial consistency with outputs from two credible numerical models. Validation against in situ measurements from three ground networks confirms the accuracy of the downscaled dataset. Comparative analysis demonstrates the superiority of the Bayesian-based method over four individual machine learning methods. The high-resolution dataset produced proves effective in capturing drought dynamics, particularly extreme drought patterns. The robustness of our framework is further affirmed through uncertainty analysis, employing leave-one-out and progressive sample reduction approaches. In summary, our ensemble machine learning-based framework offers an efficient solution for acquiring accurate and high-resolution soil moisture data across large regions, with implications for water resource management and drought monitoring.
- Preprint
(2681 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(784 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (extended)
-
RC1: 'Comment on hess-2024-129', Anonymous Referee #1, 20 Jun 2024
reply
The major contribution of this paper is the use of Bayesian Model Averaging (BMA) to combine the outputs from several different empirical ("machine learning") techniques for soil moisture downscaling. The authors test this methodological innovation by comparing to a large dataset of in-situ soil moisture sensors scattered across northern China. I have several comments that I hope the authors will address.
First, I believe that statistical derivation of BMA assumes that the models are independent of each other. It seems like the models developed here are likely not independent because they have been developed using the same inputs and the same training data. Have the authors tested whether this assumption applies to their models? If they are dependent, what is the impact on the results?
Second, all the downscaling methods considered provide very little improvement in the soil moisture estimates. A key goal of downscaling is to include fine scale spatial variability that is not present in the coarse resolution input. However, when I examine the histograms in Figure 6, I see no increase in the variability of soil moisture when the downscaling methods are applied. Some of the methods have less variability than the coarse resolution input. Are these methods successfully introducing any variability in the patterns? Also, the accuracy of the BMA method is only slightly better than the coarse resolution input. The exact improvement is difficult to see because Table 4 does not include the performance of the coarse resolution input nor the overall performance across all the datasets used. Those should be added). The authors seem satisfied with the improvement in their discussion and conclusions, but it seems like the improvements do not warrant the huge processing involved. The authors consider relatively few variables. Could better performance be achieved by using model inputs?
Third, little consideration is given as to whether the in situ dataset adequately captures 1-km spatial variations in soil moisture (which is the stated goal of the downscaling method). The measurement support is likely very small and the spacing is likely much larger than 1-km. Even if the downscaling models reproduce this dataset exactly, have we really developed an accurate 1-km resolution soil moisture estimate? Can the authors provide some support that that a given in situ soil moisture observation is representative of its 1-km grid cell? Also, can the authors show that the collection of 1-km grid cells that have in situ observations capture the range of conditions that occur within the region? I believe some support along these lines would greatly strengthen the paper.
I would suggest removing the Noah results because they really don't contribute to testing the innovation that is presented.Â
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-129-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
327 | 106 | 21 | 454 | 33 | 20 | 17 |
- HTML: 327
- PDF: 106
- XML: 21
- Total: 454
- Supplement: 33
- BibTeX: 20
- EndNote: 17
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1