Remote Sensing (Apr 2019)

Evaluation and Analysis of AMSR2 and FY3B Soil Moisture Products by an In Situ Network in Cropland on Pixel Scale in the Northeast of China

  • Haoyang Fu,
  • Tingting Zhou,
  • Chenglin Sun

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11070868
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 11, no. 7
p. 868

Abstract

Read online

An in situ soil moisture observation network at pixel scale is constructed in cropland in the northeast of China for accurate regional soil moisture evaluations of satellite products. The soil moisture products are based on the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) algorithm and the Land Parameter Retrieval Model (LPRM) from the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer 2 (AMSR2), and the products from the FengYun-3B (FY3B) satellite are evaluated using synchronous in situ data collected by the EC-5 sensors at the surface in a typical cropland in the northeast of China during the crop-growing season from May to September 2017. The results show that the JAXA product provides an underestimation with a bias (b) of -0.094 cm3/cm3, and the LPRM soil moisture product generates an overestimation with a b of 0.156 cm3/cm3. However the LPRM product shows a better correlation with the in situ data, especially in the early experimental period when the correlation coefficient is 0.654, which means only the JAXA product in the early stage, with an unbiased root mean square error (ubRMSE) of 0.049 cm3/cm3 and a b of -0.043 cm3/cm3, reaches the goal accuracy (±0.05 cm3/cm3). The FY3B has consistently obtained microwave brightness temperature data, but its soil moisture product data in the study area is seriously missing during most of the experimental period. However, it recovers in the later period and is closer to the in situ data than the JAXA and LPRM products. The three products show totally different trends with vegetation cover, soil temperature, and actual soil moisture itself in different time periods. The LPRM product is more sensitive and correlated with the in situ data, and is less susceptible to interferences. The JAXA is numerically closer to the in situ data, but the results are still affected by temperature. Both will decrease in accuracy as the actual soil moisture increases. The FY3B seems to perform better at the end of the whole period after data recovery.

Keywords