Remote Sensing (Dec 2019)

Evaluation of Backscattering Models and Support Vector Machine for the Retrieval of Bare Soil Moisture from Sentinel-1 Data

  • Jamal Ezzahar,
  • Nadia Ouaadi,
  • Mehrez Zribi,
  • Jamal Elfarkh,
  • Ghizlane Aouade,
  • Said Khabba,
  • Salah Er-Raki,
  • Abdelghani Chehbouni,
  • Lionel Jarlan

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12010072
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 12, no. 1
p. 72

Abstract

Read online

The main objective of this work was to retrieve surface soil moisture (SSM) by using scattering models and a support vector machine (SVM) technique driven by backscattering coefficients obtained from Sentinel-1 satellite images acquired over bare agricultural soil in the Tensfit basin of Morocco. Two backscattering models were selected in this study due to their wide use in inversion procedures: the theoretical integral equation model (IEM) and the semi-empirical model (Oh). To this end, the sensitivity of the SAR backscattering coefficients at V V ( σ v v ∘ ) and V H ( σ v h ∘ ) polarizations to in situ soil moisture data were analyzed first. As expected, the results showed that over bare soil the σ v v ∘ was well correlated with SSM compared to the σ v h ∘ , which showed more dispersion with correlation coefficients values (r) of about 0.84 and 0.61 for the V V and V H polarizations, respectively. Afterwards, these values of σ v v ∘ were compared to those simulated by the backscatter models. It was found that IEM driven by the measured length correlation L slightly underestimated SAR backscatter coefficients compared to the Oh model with a bias of about − 0.7 dB and − 1.2 dB and a root mean square (RMSE) of about 1.1 dB and 1.5 dB for Oh and IEM models, respectively. However, the use of an optimal value of L significantly improved the bias of IEM, which became near to zero, and the RMSE decreased to 0.9 dB. Then, a classical inversion approach of σ v v ∘ observations based on backscattering model is compared to a data driven retrieval technic (SVM). By comparing the retrieved soil moisture against ground truth measurements, it was found that results of SVM were very encouraging and were close to those obtained by IEM model. The bias and RMSE were about 0.28 vol.% and 2.77 vol.% and − 0.13 vol.% and 2.71 vol.% for SVM and IEM, respectively. However, by taking into account the difficultly of obtaining roughness parameter at large scale, it was concluded that SVM is still a useful tool to retrieve soil moisture, and therefore, can be fairly used to generate maps at such scales.

Keywords