The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Evaluation of the agreement between the first global remotely sensed soil moisture data with model and precipitation data
Open accessAbstract
The lack of global soil moisture data has spurred research in the field of microwave remote sensing. Both passive (radiometers) and active (scatterometer) microwave data are very sensitive to the moisture content of the surface soil layer. To retrieve soil moisture, the effects of vegetation, surface roughness, and heterogeneous land cover must be taken into account. Field experiments have shown that passive microwave data at long wavelengths (L‐band) are best suited for soil moisture retrieval. Nevertheless, the first global, multiannual soil moisture data set (1992–2000) has been derived from active microwave data acquired by the European Remote Sensing Satellites (ERS) ERS‐1 and ERS‐2 scatterometer (C‐band). The retrieval algorithm is based on a change detection approach that naturally accounts for surface roughness and heterogeneous land cover. In this paper the scatterometer‐derived soil moisture data are compared to gridded precipitation data and soil moisture modeled by a global vegetation and water balance model. The correlation between soil moisture and rainfall anomalies is observed to be best over areas with a dense rainfall gauge network. Also, the scatterometer‐derived and modeled soil moisture agree reasonably well over tropical and temperate climates. The fact that the algorithm performs equally well for regions with summer rain and Mediterranean areas indicates that dynamic vegetation effects are correctly represented in the retrieval. More research is needed to better understand the backscattering behavior over dry (steppe, deserts) and cold (boreal zone, tundra) climatic regions. The scatterometer‐derived soil moisture data are available to other research groups at http://www.ipf.tuwien.ac.at/radar/ers-scat/home.htm.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
A climate-change risk analysis for world ecosystems
Scholze, M., Knorr, W., Arnell, N. W., & Prentice, I. C. (2006) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0601816103 · Cited by 756
An Improved Soil Moisture Retrieval Algorithm for ERS and METOP Scatterometer Observations
Naeimi, V., Scipal, K., Bartalis, Z., Hasenauer, S., & Wagner, W. (2009) · IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2008.2011617 · Cited by 429
Self-citationIdentifying environmental controls on vegetation greenness phenology through model–data integration
(2014) · doi:10.5194/bg-11-7025-2014 · Cited by 109
Metadata
- Authors
- Wagner, W., Scipal, K., Pathe, C., Gerten, D., Lucht, W., & Rudolf, B.
- Venue
- Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 2003-10-10
- Volume
- 108
- Issue
- D19
- ISSN
- 0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2024903254
- Cited by
- 315
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 13.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluation of the agreement between the first global remotely sensed soil moisture data with model and precipitation data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/2003jd003663
- The paper
- Wagner, W., Scipal, K., Pathe, C., Gerten, D., Lucht, W., & Rudolf, B. (2003). Evaluation of the agreement between the first global remotely sensed soil moisture data with model and precipitation data. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003jd003663
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.