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

Journal metrics

Journal metrics

  • IF value: 4.936 IF 4.936
  • IF 5-year value: 5.615 IF 5-year
  • CiteScore value: 4.94 CiteScore
  • SNIP value: 1.612 SNIP 1.612
  • IPP value: 4.70 IPP 4.70
  • SJR value: 2.134 SJR 2.134
  • Scimago H <br class='hide-on-tablet hide-on-mobile'>index value: 107 Scimago H
    index 107
  • h5-index value: 63 h5-index 63
Discussion papers
© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Submitted as: research article 18 Nov 2019

Submitted as: research article | 18 Nov 2019

Review status
This discussion paper is a preprint. It is a manuscript under review for the journal Hydrology and Earth System Sciences (HESS).

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: open (until 13 Jan 2020)
Status: open (until 13 Jan 2020)
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
[Subscribe to comment alert] Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement
Ning Zhang et al.
Total article views: 224 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total Supplement BibTeX EndNote
168 47 9 224 21 8 9
  • HTML: 168
  • PDF: 47
  • XML: 9
  • Total: 224
  • Supplement: 21
  • BibTeX: 8
  • EndNote: 9
Views and downloads (calculated since 18 Nov 2019)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 18 Nov 2019)
Viewed (geographical distribution)  
Total article views: 191 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 191 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
No saved metrics found.
No discussed metrics found.
Latest update: 07 Dec 2019
Publications Copernicus