operational soil moisture from sar systems: towards sentinel-1 · operational soil moisture from...
TRANSCRIPT
ISPRS 2010, July, Vienna, Austria
Operational soil moisture from SAR systems: from ENVISAT towards
SENTINEL-1
Doubkova Marcela, Sabel Daniel, Sebastian Hahn, Pathe Carsten, Wagner Wolfgang
ISPRS 2010, July, Vienna, Austria
Recent application of soil moisture
Soil moisture in models … contributes to the predictability of precipitation (Koster et al., 2004,
Crow, 2008) … is important for improving numerical weather forecasts (Scipal,
2007) ... can improve performance of hydrological models at small basins
(aprox. 100*100km) (Loumagne, 2001; Crow, 2005; Brocca, 2009; Beck, 2009)
ISPRS 2010, July, Vienna, Austria
Soil moisture products at coarse scale
ISPRS 2010, July, Vienna, Austria
Recent application of soil moisture
www.ipf.tuwien.ac.at/radar/dv/asar/ www.ipf.tuwien.ac.at/radar/share
The need for higher resolution soil moisture has motivated extensive research within the SAR community
A quasi-operational product from ASAR GM existing at IPF (TU WIEN) based on change detection algorithm
ISPRS 2010, July, Vienna, Austria
ASAR algorithm Change detection algorithm using
long time series of ASAR backscatter (σ0 )
Normalized to 30 degrees LIA
Scaled between hist. minimum and maximum σ0 values
Algorithm
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )tyxmtyxStyxtyx sdry ,,,,,,,, 00 += σσ
Sm drys /)( 00 σσ −=
)/())30(( 0000drywetdrysm σσσθβσ −−−−=
ISPRS 2010, July, Vienna, Austria
Soil moisture products at medium scale
1 km Soil moisture product from ENVISAT
1 km/500m Soil moisture product from SENTINEL-1
FUTURE (operational appl.) PRESENT (research)
Type Semi-operational at IPF Operational (at ?)
Band C band C band
Spatial resolution
1 km 1 km
Radiometric resolution
1.2 dB In several magnitude better
Temporal resolution (Europe Global)
10-30 days 2-5 days
3-6 days 6-12 days
Accuracy 15 – 20 % over grassland and agricultural areas
4-8% over grassland and agricultural areas
Dissemination Monthly, demonstrated potential for daily update
Within 180 minutes after sensing
ISPRS 2010, July, Vienna, Austria
A good understanding of the existing ASAR GM SM product algorithm and its errors
A - Set of validation studies with in-situ and remote sensing data
B - Error assessment studies of the ASAR GM
Motivation: towards operational products
High temporal sampling Operational availability Near-real-time availability A good radiometric resolution Free and easy access
(fulfilled with SENTINEL-1)
ISPRS 2010, July, Vienna, Austria
A – Validation studies AWRA landscape model
AWRA model –
independent representation
of soil moisture by landscape model
Up to RAsAw values > 0.8 are found over agricultural areas in south-western and south-eastern Australia
ISPRS 2010, July, Vienna, Austria
A – Other Validation studies Goulbourn catchment, Australia
ASAR GM versus in-situ (Hydraprobes station)
capable to show wetting and drying patterns in a high agreement to in-situ data
Average R = 0.75, improves with averaging over several ASAR pixels
apparent wet bias
I. Mladenova, . et al, 2010
ISPRS 2010, July, Vienna, Austria
ASAR algorithm Change detection algorithm using
long time series of ASAR backscatter (σ0 )
Normalized to 30 degrees
Scaled between hist. minimum and maximum σ0 values
B - ASAR GM Error analyses
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )tyxmtyxStyxtyx sdry ,,,,,,,, 00 += σσ
Sm drys /)( 00 σσ −=
)/())30(( 0000drywetdrysm σσσθβσ −−−−=
ISPRS 2010, July, Vienna, Austria
A B - ASAR GM Error analyses
Error 1. noise of GM backscatter 2. uncertainties of the parameter
estimation - β, σdry , σwet Gaussian propagation law – summation of partial derivatives of individual parameters
01.02.1 22
+
+
=∆
SSms
β
Error estimate (%)
Pathe, 2009
ISPRS 2010, July, Vienna, Austria
RMSE (%) between ASAR and AWRA soil moisture
How well can we define differences between ASAR data and modelled soil moisture using ASAR error assessment?
B - ASAR GM Error analyses
AWRA dataset kindly provided by A. van Dijk,, CSIRO, AUSTRALIA
2
)ˆˆ()( 1
2
−
−=
∑=
n
MSSMjRMSE
n
iASARijASARij
RMSE – deviation from the fit between ASAR GM soil moisture and AWRA modelled soil moisture
ISPRS 2010, July, Vienna, Austria
A - ASAR GM Error analyses
R=0.7955 R=0.795 RMSE= 2.348
ISPRS 2010, July, Vienna, Austria
The change detection algorithm performs well Averaging over 2-5 km over ASAR GM increases the
radiometric quality of the product The first results show a good relation between ASAR GM
error and RMSE with modeled data A quasi operational product from ASAR GM can be retrieved
within few hours
CONCLUSION 1
Due to all above points and simplicity of the model, a transfer is seen as relatively straight forward
ISPRS 2010, July, Vienna, Austria
THANK YOU
ISPRS 2010, July, Vienna, Austria
Soil moisture products at medium scale
1 km Soil moisture product from ENVISAT
1 km/500m Soil moisture product from SENTINEL-1
FUTURE (operational appl.) PRESENT (research)
Type Semi-operational at IPF Operational (at ?)
Band C band C band
Radiometric resolution
1.2 dB In magnitude better than ENVISAT
Spatial resolution
1 km 1 km
Temporal resolution (Europe Global)
10-30 days 2-5 days
3-6 days 6-12 days
Accuracy 15 – 20 % over grassland and agricultural areas
4-8% over grassland and agricultural areas
Dissemination Monthly, demonstrated potential for daily update
Within 180 minutes after sensing
ISPRS 2010, July, Vienna, Austria
C – Does ASAR GM soil moisture product represent secondary effects of soil moisture on vegetation?
C band (~4.5cm) is able to
partial penetrate vegetation At what vegetation volume
do we no longer sense soil but vegetation?
Partial penetration State the problem that C
band may not penetrate
ISPRS 2010, July, Vienna, Austria
B – Validation studies
ISPRS 2010, July, Vienna, Austria
38 stations (Time Domain
reflectometry stations) at 5 cm depth
Average correlation: XX Improvement with
averaging over several ASAR GM pixels
C – Other Validation studies Murrumbudgee catchment
ISPRS 2010, July, Vienna, Austria
The spatial patterns of R correspond to recurrent vegetation
Local types of recurrent vegetation:
- water responsive grasses - cropping areas
B – Validation studies
ISPRS 2010, July, Vienna, Austria
Possible explanations for low correlation in western regions
extremely low variance of soil moisture over these areas
missing soil properties information in the AWRA model poor quality of AWRA input precipitation
Distribution of gauge stations available in the estimation of precipitation input for the AWRA system
yy
yy
SSSEESS
R−
=
Variability SS of ASAR GM
? Include ?B – Validation studies
ISPRS 2010, July, Vienna, Austria
Drought
ISPRS 2010, July, Vienna, Austria
Example from the Atlas of our changing environment, 2008
ISPRS 2010, July, Vienna, Austria
The ASAR GM data are available since 2004. Here we present the ASAR GM data averaged for two different months from 2007 to 2009. The figure demonstrates the interanual variability of soil moisture and the movement of the intertropical convergence zone (ITCZ) that moves from the northern to the southern tropics resulting in regular dry and wet seasons. Evident are also for example a) the larger southern extent of the ITCZ in January 2008 and b) the wet soil moisture conditions in Mozambique in July 2009.
ISPRS 2010, July, Vienna, Austria
ASAR
GM
AS
CAT
The below average soil moisture conditions in May 2009 in Kenya as represented by ASCAT and ASAR GM soil moisture products and the NDVI vegetation anomaly in following month of June.
ISPRS 2010, July, Vienna, Austria
2005 2006 2007
MAR
CH
APRI
L
MAR
CH
APRI
L ASAR GM Surface Soil Moisture; Monthly means 2005 - 2007
ISPRS 2010, July, Vienna, Austria
Hudur
Baidoa
JRC, Mars-Food, 2007
ISPRS 2010, July, Vienna, Austria
JRC, Mars-Food, 2007
Monitoring agricultural vegetation in Somalia using SPOT VGT Vegetation Index, AFRICOVER and ECMWF Global Meteorological Modelling
ISPRS 2010, July, Vienna, Austria
Australia – fires 2009
Satellite image of bushfires in southeast Australia taken Feb. 7, 2009. NASA image courtesy the MODIS Rapid Response Team, NASA Goddard Space Fligh
ASCAT SM
ASAR GM SM
ISPRS 2010, July, Vienna, Austria
Assimilation into hydrological models
ISPRS 2010, July, Vienna, Austria
Validation w. modeled data (TOPKAPI model)
SHARE ext. final meeting
Source: Vischel et al., 2008
TOPKAPI (physically-based hydrological model) versus ERS-SCAT SM
R2 between 0.68 and 0.92
Topkapi --- Scatteromter o comparison in two seasons.
ISPRS 2010, July, Vienna, Austria Source: Scheffler, 2008
ISPRS 2010, July, Vienna, Austria
J2000 model is a modeling system for the distributed simulation of the water balance in large river basins
ISPRS 2010, July, Vienna, Austria
Validation w. ASCAT SM (with ASCAT)
SHARE ext. final meeting
Different technologies of ASAR and ASCAT (polarization, resolution, radiometric accuracy)
Very high correlation
Comparison between averaged ASAR SM and ASCAT SM.
Cropland Rangeland Forest
Mean R 0.91 0.74 0.65
Mean RMSE [%]
13.9 17.3 17.3
Mean bias [%]
3.3 14.8 -3.6
Source: Sabel et al., 2008