Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 189

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

An Intercomparison of ERS-Scat and AMSR-E Soil Moisture Observations with Model Simulations over France

Open access
Rüdiger, Christoph, Calvet, Jean-Christophe, Gruhier, Claire, Holmes, Thomas R. H., de Jeu, Richard A. M., Wagner, Wolfgang·2009·Journal of Hydrometeorology

Abstract

This paper presents a study undertaken in preparation of the work leading up to the assimilation of Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity (SMOS) observations into the land surface model (LSM) Interaction Soil Biosphere Atmosphere (ISBA) at Météo-France. This study consists of an intercomparison experiment of different space-borne platforms providing surface soil moisture information [Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for Earth Observing (AMSR-E) and European Remote Sensing Satellite Scatterometer (ERS-Scat)] with the reanalysis soil moisture predictions over France from the model suite of Système d’analyse fournissant des renseignements atmosphériques à la neige (SAFRAN), ISBA, and coupled model (MODCOU; SIM) of Météo-France for the years of 2003–05. Both modeled and remotely sensed data are initially validated against in situ observations obtained at the experimental soil moisture monitoring site Surface Monitoring of the Soil Reservoir Experiment (SMOSREX) in southwestern France. Two different AMSR-E soil moisture products are compared in the course of this study—the official AMSR-E product from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) and a new product developed at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and NASA (VUA–NASA)—which were obtained using two different retrieval algorithms. This allows for an additional assessment of the different algorithms while using identical brightness temperature datasets. This study shows that a good correlation generally exists between AMSR-E (VUA–NASA), ERS-Scat, and SIM for low altitudes and low-to-moderate vegetation covers (1.5–3 kg m−2 vegetation water content), with a reduction in the correlation in mountainous regions. It also shows that the AMSR-E (NSIDC) soil moisture product has significant differences when compared to the other datasets.

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 · 10.1175/2008jhm997.1

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 189

Metadata

Authors
Rüdiger, C., Calvet, J.-C., Gruhier, C., Holmes, T. R. H., de Jeu, R. A. M., & Wagner, W.
Venue
Journal of Hydrometeorology
Published
2009-04-01
Volume
10
Issue
2
Pages
431-447
ISSN
  • 1525-7541 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-755X
OpenAlex
W2094343246
Cited by
189
References
0
FWCI
19.29
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: An Intercomparison of ERS-Scat and AMSR-E Soil Moisture Observations with Model Simulations over France. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1175/2008jhm997.1
The paper
Rüdiger, C., Calvet, J.-C., Gruhier, C., Holmes, T. R. H., de Jeu, R. A. M., & Wagner, W. (2009). An Intercomparison of ERS-Scat and AMSR-E Soil Moisture Observations with Model Simulations over France. Journal of Hydrometeorology. https://doi.org/10.1175/2008jhm997.1

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.