Comparing the estimation of soil surface moisture in agricultural lands using SAR data: ALOS PALSAR-2 and Sentinel-1A data

Sangini, Sadollah; Fadaei, Hadi; Sadoddin, Amir; Sheikh, Vahedberdi; Komaki, Chooghi Bairam

doi:10.30495/girs.2022.681864

Manuscript ID : GIRS-2012-1880 (R2) Visit : 388 Page: 1 - 20

10.30495/girs.2022.681864

http://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.26767082.1401.13.1.1.9

Article Type: Original Research

Comparing the estimation of soil surface moisture in agricultural lands using SAR data: ALOS PALSAR-2 and Sentinel-1A data

Subject Areas : Applications in water resources management

Sadollah Sangini ¹ , Hadi Fadaei ² , Amir Sadoddin ³ , Vahedberdi Sheikh ⁴ , Chooghi Bairam Komaki ⁵

1 - Ph.D. Student, Watershed Management, Department of Watershed Management, Faculty of Natural Resources, University Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Iran
2 - Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, Faculty of Geography, Amin Police University, Tehran, Iran
3 - Associate Professor, Department of Watershed Management, Faculty of Natural Resources, University Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Iran
4 - Associate Professor, Department of Watershed Management, Faculty of Natural Resources, University Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Iran
5 - Assistant Professor, Department of Desert Management, Faculty of Natural Resources, University Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Iran

Received: 2021-01-01 Accepted : 2021-05-16 Published : 2022-04-21

Keywords: ALOS PALSAR-2 sensor, Water cloud model, Sentinel-1A, Soil surface moisture, Oh model,

Abstract :

Background and Objective Aq Qala plain is one of the fertile plains of Golestan province. Runoff accumulation and flood formation cause a lot of human and financial losses. Understanding the temporal and spatial distributions of soil surface moisture is a key variable in simulating runoff and reducing flood hazards in the research area. In this study, the soil moisture content was investigated using data from ALOS PALSAR-2 radar satellites in the L band and Sentinel 1 in the C band.Materials and Methods In this research, three series of ALOS PALSAR-2 radar data, Sentinel 1, and optical data of Sentinel 2A were used. To calculate the soil surface moisture, first soil samples were taken and weighed at a depth of 5 cm in each cluster by weight method. After drying the samples in the oven, the dry and wet weight was calculated. Then two important parameters of soil moisture, including dielectric constant and soil surface roughness were measured. The dielectric constant was calculated using TDR and the roughness was calculated using two digital cameras. Using Agisoft photo scan and Arc GIS software, a digital elevation model and surface roughness profiles were extracted. Radar data were processed with SNAP software from the European Space Agency (ESA). The processing steps included radiometric calibration, sigma note extraction in decibels, filtration of Lee filter and 5x5 kernel size, geometric correction and finally geocoding of all three data. With Sentinel-2 optical data, while preparing vegetation and moisture indices, a land-use map was prepared with the Forrest random algorithm. Then, with the values of roughness, dielectric constant and plant and moisture indices in MATLAB 2019 software environment, two models Oh, and WCM were coded and the soil moisture values were calculated and taken out. Then the moisture obtained from the surface redistribution model with gravity, moisture at the site, and previous studies was evaluated.Results and Discussion In terms of radar signal sensitivity to soil surface moisture in Oh model in HH and HV polarization ALOS PALSAR- 2, in with R2 = 0.86, with R2 = 0.905 and for Sentinel-1 images, in with R2 = 0.91 and with R2 = 0.93 are sensitive to soil surface moisture. The surface backscattering coefficients sensitivity of the Oh model in ALOS PALSAR-2 in HH polarization and in HV polarization and for Sentinel-1 data in VV polarization and in VH polarization is sensitive to surface roughness. Also, the surface backscattering coefficients sensitivity of the Oh model in ALOS PALSAR-2 in HH polarization with R2 = 0.96 and in HV polarization with R2 = 0.94 and for Sentinel-1 data in VV polarization with R2 = 0.72 and in VH polarization with R2 = 0.74 is sensitive to surface roughness. Relationship between total surface backscattering coefficients obtained from the Water cloud model and soil surface moisture measured in HH and HV polarization PALSAR-2 images, in and with R2 = 0.73 and R2 = 0.399, respectively, and for Sentinel-1 data in polarization VV and VH, in and with R2 = 0.073 and R2 = 0.13, respectively, are sensitive to soil surface moisture. In the soil moisture estimation section based on Oh model for PALSAR-2 and Sentinel-1 data on bare lands in HH and HV polarization for PALSAR-2, and with R2 = 0.88, RMSE = 1.924 and R2 = 0.93, RMSE = 1.45 for Sentinel-1 data, respectively, and are with R2 = 0.81, RMSE = 2.57 and R2 = 0.97, RMSE = 0.90 , respectively. The results of Oh model showed that in HV polarization, Pulsar-2 images and VH sentinel-1 polarization images have stronger soil moisture results. Soil moisture results in WCM model in vegetated lands for PALSAR-2 images in HH and HV polarization in and , respectively, with R2 = 0.81, RMSE = 2.44 and R2 = 0.78, RMSE = 2.64 , R2 = 0.88, RMSE = 1.924 for Sentinel-1 in and with R2 = 0.75, RMSE = 2.74 and R2 = 0.76, RMSE = 2.69 , respectively. In the discussion of estimating soil moisture with WCM model, the results of PALSAR-2 in polarization HH with R2 = 0.81 in lands with vegetation density of more than 0.4% have better results.Conclusion In the Oh model, the results showed that the sensitivity of HV polarization in PALSAR-2 images and VH polarization in Sentinel-1 in an area with vegetation density less than 0.4 is much higher than the polarization sensitivity of HH PALSAR-2 and polarized VV Sentinel-1. Also, the HH polarization sensitivity of PALSAR-2 and VH Sentinel-1 polarized images to surface roughness is higher than other polarizations. In the Water cloud model, the results obtained from Sentinel-1 data by eliminating the effects of vegetation and simulating the surface backscattering coefficients are very poor. Has reduced the penetration of the wave. The results showed that the polarization sensitivity of HH in areas with vegetation with a density of more than 0.4 was much higher than the polarization sensitivity of HV, also the sensitivity of the radar signal to noise was low in polarized HH but high in polarized HV. This showed that the polarization of the HH matrix is sensitive to vegetation, so the model will be more stable in the presence of vegetation. A comparison of two SAR data in the range showed that PALSAR-2 images are more efficient for estimating soil surface moisture in the study area and similar areas due to their long wavelength and depth of penetration into soil and vegetation. In line with the research topic, other researchers, including Alishan et al. A study has attempted to estimate soil surface moisture in barren lands using PALSAR-2 and Sentinel-1 data, which concluded that the WCM model eliminates plant water content. And surface moisture estimation using the inverse model was high in both PALSAR-2 and Sentinel-1 data. A study by Zaribi et al. Showed that the OH model in both polarized HV and HH with lower RMSE is able to estimate soil surface moisture. This research is suitable for environmental management, agriculture, natural resources, and water resources management and contributes significantly to hydrological modeling.

References:

Aliihsan S, Marangoz AM, Abdikan S. 2020. ALOS-2 and Sentinel-1 SAR data sensitivity analysis to surface soil moisture over bare and vegetated agricultural fields. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 171: 105303. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2020.105303.

Autret M, Bernard R, Vidal-Madjar D. 1989. Theoretical study of the sensitivity of the microwave backscattering coefficient to the soil surface parameters. Remote Sensing, 10(1): 171-179. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/01431168908903854.

Baghdadi N, Cerdan O, Zribi M, Auzet V, Darboux F, El Hajj M, Kheir RB. 2008. Operational performance of current synthetic aperture radar sensors in mapping soil surface characteristics in agricultural environments: application to hydrological and erosion modelling. Hydrological Processes: An International Journal, 22(1): 9-20. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.6609.

Baghdadi N, Choker M, Zribi M, Hajj ME, Paloscia S, Verhoest NE, Lievens H, Baup F, Mattia F. 2016. A new empirical model for radar scattering from bare soil surfaces. Remote Sensing, 8(11): 920. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/rs8110920.

Baghdadi N, Cresson R, Todoroff P, Moinet S. 2010. Multitemporal observations of sugarcane by TerraSAR-X images. Sensors, 10(10): 8899-8919. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/s101008899.

Baghdadi N, El Hajj M, Zribi M, Bousbih S. 2017. Calibration of the water cloud model at C-band for winter crop fields and grasslands. Remote Sensing, 9(9): 969. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/rs9090969.

Baghdadi N, King C, Bonnifait A. 2002. An empirical calibration of the integral equation model based on SAR data and soil parameters measurements. In: IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium. IEEE, pp 2646-2650.

Bindlish R, Barros AP. 2001. Parameterization of vegetation backscatter in radar-based, soil moisture estimation. Remote Sensing of Environment, 76(1): 130-137. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-4257(00)00200-5.

Cashion J, Lakshmi V, Bosch D, Jackson TJ. 2005. Microwave remote sensing of soil moisture: evaluation of the TRMM microwave imager (TMI) satellite for the Little River Watershed Tifton, Georgia. Journal of Hydrology, 307(1): 242-253. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.10.019.

Champion I, Guyot G. 1991. Generalized formulation for semi-empirical radar models representing crop backscattering. In: 5. International Colloquium, vol 319. ASE.

Chen K-S, Wu T-D, Tsang L, Li Q, Shi J, Fung AK. 2003. Emission of rough surfaces calculated by the integral equation method with comparison to three-dimensional moment method simulations. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 41(1): 90-101. doi:https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2002.807587.

Choker M, Baghdadi N, Zribi M, El Hajj M, Paloscia S, Verhoest NE, Lievens H, Mattia F. 2017. Evaluation of the Oh, Dubois and IEM backscatter models using a large dataset of SAR data and experimental soil measurements. Water, 9(1): 38. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/w9010038.

Das K, Paul PK. 2015. Present status of soil moisture estimation by microwave remote sensing. Cogent Geoscience, 1(1): 1084669. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/23312041.2015.1084669.

Dubois PC, Van Zyl J, Engman T. 1995. Measuring soil moisture with imaging radars. IEEE transactions on geoscience and remote sensing, 33(4): 915-926. doi:https://doi.org/10.1109/36.406677.

El Hajj M, Baghdadi N, Zribi M, Rodríguez-Fernández N, Wigneron JP, Al-Yaari A, Al Bitar A, Albergel C, Calvet J-C. 2018. Evaluation of SMOS, SMAP, ASCAT and Sentinel-1 soil moisture products at sites in Southwestern France. Remote Sensing, 10(4): 569. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10040569.

Fung A, Chen K. 1992. Dependence of the surface backscattering coefficients on roughness, frequency and polarization states. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 13(9): 1663-1680. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/01431169208904219.

Fung AK, Li Z, Chen K-S. 1992. Backscattering from a randomly rough dielectric surface. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 30(2): 356-369. doi:https://doi.org/10.1109/36.134085.

He L, Chen JM, Chen K-S. 2017. Simulation and SMAP observation of sun-glint over the land surface at the L-band. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 55(5): 2589-2604. doi:https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2017.2648502.

Holah N, Baghdadi N, Zribi M, Bruand A, King C. 2005. Potential of ASAR/ENVISAT for the characterization of soil surface parameters over bare agricultural fields. Remote Sensing of Environment, 96(1): 78-86. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2005.01.008.

Hong Z, Zhang W, Yu C, Zhang D, Li L, Meng L. 2018. Swcti: Surface water content temperature index for assessment of surface soil moisture status. Sensors, 18(9): 2875. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/s18092875.

Huang S, Ding J, Zou J, Liu B, Zhang J, Chen W. 2019. Soil moisture retrival based on sentinel-1 imagery under sparse vegetation coverage. Sensors, 19(3): 589. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/s19030589.

Lo MH, Famiglietti JS. 2013. Irrigation in California's Central Valley strengthens the southwestern US water cycle. Geophysical Research Letters, 40(2): 301-306. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50108.

Oh Y. 2004. Quantitative retrieval of soil moisture content and surface roughness from multipolarized radar observations of bare soil surfaces. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 42(3): 596-601. doi:https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2003.821065.

Oh Y, Kay YC. 1998. Condition for precise measurement of soil surface roughness. IEEE transactions on geoscience and remote sensing, 36(2): 691-695. doi:https://doi.org/10.1109/36.662751.

Oh Y, Sarabandi K, Ulaby FT. 1992. An empirical model and an inversion technique for radar scattering from bare soil surfaces. IEEE transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 30(2): 370-381. doi:https://doi.org/10.1109/36.134086.

Oh Y, Sarabandi K, Ulaby FT. 1994. An inversion algorithm for retrieving soil moisture and surface roughness from polarimetric radar observation. In: Proceedings of IGARSS'94-1994 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium. IEEE, pp 1582-1584.

Oh Y, Sarabandi K, Ulaby FT. 2002. Semi-empirical model of the ensemble-averaged differential Mueller matrix for microwave backscattering from bare soil surfaces. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 40(6): 1348-1355. doi:https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2002.800232.

Paloscia S, Pettinato S, Santi E, Notarnicola C, Pasolli L, Reppucci A. 2013. Soil moisture mapping using Sentinel-1 images: Algorithm and preliminary validation. Remote Sensing of Environment, 134: 234-248. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2013.02.027.

Pettinato S, Santi E, Paloscia S, Pampaloni P, Fontanelli G. 2013. The intercomparison of X-band SAR images from COSMO‑SkyMed and TerraSAR-X satellites: Case studies. Remote Sensing, 5(6): 2928-2942. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/rs5062928.

Prévot L, Champion I, Guyot G. 1993. Estimating surface soil moisture and leaf area index of a wheat canopy using a dual-frequency (C and X bands) scatterometer. Remote Sensing of Environment, 46(3): 331-339. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0034-4257(93)90053-Z.

Sikdar M, Cumming I. 2004. A modified empirical model for soil moisture estimation in vegetated areas using SAR data. In: IGARSS 2004. 2004 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium. IEEE, pp 803-806. http://dx.doi.org/810.1109/IGARSS.2004.1368526.

Sorooshian S, Li J, Hsu Kl, Gao X. 2011. How significant is the impact of irrigation on the local hydroclimate in California’s Central Valley? Comparison of model results with ground and remote‐sensing data. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 116(D6). doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JD014775.

Ulaby FT, Moore RK, Fung AK. 1986. Microwave remote sensing: Active and passive. Volume 3-From theory to applications. doi:https://doi.org/10.1109/TGE.1978.294586.

Yin Z, Lei T, Yan Q, Chen Z, Dong Y. 2013. A near-infrared reflectance sensor for soil surface moisture measurement. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 99: 101-107. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2013.08.029.

Zhao X, Huang N, Song X-F, Li Z, Niu Z. 2016. A new method for soil moisture inversion in vegetation-covered area based on Radarsat 2 and Landsat 8. J Infrared Millim Waves, 35(5): 609-616. doi:https://doi.org/10.11972/j.issn.1001-9014.2016.05.016.

Zribi M, Dechambre M. 2003. A new empirical model to retrieve soil moisture and roughness from C-band radar data. Remote Sensing of Environment, 84(1): 42-52. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-4257(02)00069-X.

_||_