Sunglint observations over land from ground and airborne L-band radiometer data

Geophysical Research Letters (Impact Factor: 4.2). 10/2008; 35(20). DOI: 10.1029/2008GL035062


1] This study quantifies the effects of Sun reflection over land surfaces on radiometric measurements at L-band. The impact of the reflected Sun on radiometric measurements over a grass field and over an agricultural area reached 25 K and 17 K respectively. A model that predicts the impact of Sun reflection over land is developed and tested for two different radiometer configurations and spatial resolutions.

Download full-text


Available from: Maria Jose Escorihuela,
  • Source
    • "Final processing included filtering data corresponding to elevated aircraft roll angles (higher than 10 • from horizontal) corresponding to aircraft steep turns. This also minimized the possibility of sun glint in the external beams [18]. Brightness temperature observations at each site were collected during four flights between approximately 9:00 AM and 11:00 AM with a spatial resolution of about 62.5 m. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Land Parameter Retrieval Model (LPRM) has been successfully applied to retrieve soil moisture from space-borne passive microwave observations at C-, X-, or Ku-band and high incidence angles (50deg-55<sup>deg</sup>). However, LPRM had never been applied to lower angles or to L-band observations. This letter describes the parameterization and performance of LPRM using aircraft and ground data from the National Airborne Field Experiment 2005. This experiment was undertaken in November 2005 in the Goulburn River catchment, which is located in southeastern Australia. It was found that model convergence could only be achieved with a temporally dynamic roughness. The roughness was parameterized according to incidence angle and soil moisture. These findings were integrated in LPRM, resulting in one uniform parameterization for all sites. The parameterized LPRM correlated well with field observations at 5-cm depth ( r = 0.93 based on all sites) with a negligible bias and an accuracy of 0.06 m<sup>3</sup>middotm<sup>-3</sup>. These results demonstrate comparable retrieval accuracies as the official SMOS soil-moisture retrieval algorithm (L-MEB), but without the need for the ancillary data that are required by L-MEB. However, care should be taken when using the proposed dynamic roughness model as it is based on a limited data set, and a more thorough evaluation is necessary to test the validity of this new approach to a wider range of conditions.
    IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters 11/2009; 6(4-6):630 - 634. DOI:10.1109/LGRS.2009.2019607 · 2.10 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The spatial and temporal invariance of Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity (SMOS) forward model parameters for soil moisture retrieval was assessed at 1-km resolution on a diurnal basis with data from the National Airborne Field Experiment 2006. The approach used was to apply the SMOS default parameters uniformly over 27 1-km validation pixels, retrieve soil moisture from the airborne observations, and then to interpret the differences between airborne and ground estimates in terms of land use, parameter variability, and sensing depth. For pastures (17 pixels) and nonirrigated crops (5 pixels), the root mean square error (rmse) was 0.03 volumetric (vol./vol.) soil moisture with a bias of 0.004 vol./vol. For pixels dominated by irrigated crops (5 pixels), the rmse was 0.10 vol./vol., and the bias was -0.09 vol./vol. The correlation coefficient between bias in irrigated areas and the 1-km field soil moisture variability was found to be 0.73, which suggests either 1) an increase of the soil dielectric roughness (up to about one) associated with small-scale heterogeneity of soil moisture or/and 2) a difference in sensing depth between an L-band radiometer and the in situ measurements, combined with a strong vertical gradient of soil moisture in the top 6 cm of the soil.
    IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters 11/2009; 6(4-6):635 - 639. DOI:10.1109/LGRS.2009.2012727 · 2.10 Impact Factor