Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 315

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 access
Wagner, Wolfgang, Scipal, Klaus, Pathe, Carsten, Gerten, Dieter, Lucht, Wolfgang, Rudolf, Bruno·2003·Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1029/2003jd003663

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 315

Metadata

Authors
Wagner, W., Scipal, K., Pathe, C., Gerten, D., Lucht, W., & Rudolf, B.
Venue
Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
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.