See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/228525947

Microwave remote sensing of land

Article · January 2004

CITATIONS READS

19 1,216

2 authors:

Paolo Pampaloni K. Sarabandi

Italian National Research Council University of Michigan
209 PUBLICATIONS   3,671 CITATIONS    818 PUBLICATIONS   17,201 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Antenna Systems for 4G and 5G Wireless Standards View project

LEIMON: Land Monitoring with Navigation Signals View project

All content following this page was uploaded by K. Sarabandi on 08 March 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Microwave Remote Sensing of Land

Paolo Pampaloni and Kamal Sarabandi

Abstract

Considering the rapid growth of population, its impact on the environment, and limited available
resources on our planet, the need for monitoring the environmental processes and managing our
resources is unequivocal. Microwave remote sensing provides a unique capability towards
achieving this goal. Over the past decade, significant progress has been made in microwave remote
sensing of land processes through development of advanced airborne and space-borne microwave
sensors and the tools, such as physics-based models and advanced inversion algorithms, needed for
analysing the data. These activities have sharply increased in recent years since the launch of ERS –
1/2, JERS-1 and RADARSAT satellites, and with the availability of radiometric data from SSM/I.
A new era has begun by the recent space missions ESA-ENVISAT, NASA-AQUA and NASDA-
ADEOSII and the upcoming PALSAR and RADARSAT2 missions, which open new horizons for a
wide range of operational microwave remote sensing applications. This paper highlights major
activities and important results achieved in this area over the past years.

1. Introduction

The application of microwaves for remote sensing of terrestrial targets is motivated by the all-
weather, day/night, and target penetrating attributes of such systems. Though traditional optical and
multi-spectral imaging systems can be used effectively, in principle, issues related to the
atmospheric effects often render such systems less desirable. In the past decade several satellite
borne synthetic aperture radars (SAR) were launched for the remote sensing of the environment.
The successful application of SAR technology to address a wide range of remote sensing
problems helped advancement of SAR systems to include polarization diversity and operation in
interferometric mode. The first remote sensing space-borne polarimetric SAR system and the first
single-pass interferometric SAR were flown aboard the space Shuttle in 1994 [1] and 2000 [2]
respectively. A survey of theories, methods, and applications of imaging radar is given in [3]. A
very good review of radar polarimetry techniques and interferometric SAR system and applications
can be found in [4] and [5].

The most significant event, in recent years, was the launch, performed by the European Space
Agency, of the ENVISAT satellite carrying onboard a set of innovative sensors, including the
Advance Synthetic Aperture Radar (ASAR) [6]. This C-band radar is a significant improvement to
the ERS-1/2 SAR, in that it makes it possible to observe at different incidence angles and
polarizations and allows for scanSAR operations. The satellite was launched on March 1st 2002, but
data were made available to scientific community in fall 2002 only, after the commissioning phase.
Thus, most of the work performed so far with satellite radar still involves the use of data from
current in orbit ERS -2 and RADARSAT, or from archives of ERS-1 (C-band) and JERS (L-band).

____________________

Paolo Pampaloni is with the Institute of Applied Physics (IFAc) of National Research Council (CNR), via Panciatichi 64 50127
Florence, Italy- Ph: +39 055 4235205 Fax: +39 055 4235290,e-mail: [email protected]

Kamal Sarabandi is with the Dept.of Electrical Engineering & Computer Science, Radiation Lab. 1301 Beal Ave. The University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48104-6462,- Tel; (734) 936-1575, Fax: (734) 647-2106, email: [email protected]

1
 Aboard the European remote sensing satellite ERS-2 is the combined active microwave
instrument (AMI) operating at C-band (5.3 GHz) and vertical polarization. AMI is composed of a
SAR and a scatterometer (SCAT) operating in an interleaved mode. In SAR wave mode 10 km X 5
km images are acquired at a nominal incidence angle of 230 with a spatial resolution of about 30 m.
ERS-1/2 SCAT continuously illuminates a 500 km wide swath with a resolution of 45 km [7]. A
first interferogram using radar data from the ERS-2's SAR instrument and Envisat's ASAR
instrument has already been produced by scientists from the German Aerospace Centre (DLR).
They analyzed images taken in 1999 (ERS-2) and 2002 (Envisat) over the town of Las Vegas in the
US [6]. Producing an interferogram with data from these two satellites was not initially considered
to be feasible, since the SARs on ERS-2 and Envisat operate at slightly different frequencies, and
this was enough to complicate the joint processing of data from the ERS and Envisat sensors.
However, generation of interferograms using ERS and ENVISAT is proposed by the application of
permanent scatterers, with very stable scattering phase center, is proposed in [8, 9].

RADARSAT-1 was launched in November 1995 circling the Earth on a sun-synchronous polar
orbit [10]. RADARSAT-1 operates at C-band and offers users with a wide variety of beam
selections. The satellite's SAR has the unique ability to shape and steer its beam from an incidence
angle of 10 to 60 degrees, in swaths of 45 to 500 kilometers in width, with resolutions ranging from
8 to 100 meters.

As far as passive systems are concerning, two spaceborne microwave radiometers called
Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer were launched in 2002 to provide new observation
data. One sensor is the AMSR-E, aboard the Earth Observing System (EOS) Aqua of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) [11]. The other is the AMSR [12], aboard the
Advanced Earth Observing Satellite-II (ADEOS-II) of the National Space Development Agency of
Japan (NASDA). AMSR and AMSR-E are almost identical sensors, and have lower frequencies 6,
and 10 GHz, and much better ground resolution, compared to previous sensors. Indeed the ground
resolution ranges from 43x75 km2 at the lower frequency to 3.5x5.9 km2 at the highest frequency.
From the lower frequency channels of these sensors we expect to retrieve soil moisture and
vegetation biomass on a global scale with reasonable accuracy. Geophysical products are currently
being validated by means of several methods, such as the use of existing in situ data, and by
comparing data with data from other sensors [13 ].

Among the near future space-borne radar remote sensing systems, the Japanese fully polarimetric
Phased Array type L-band Synthetic Aperture Radar (PALSAR) operating at 1.27 GHz and
RADARSAT-2 operating at C-band can be mentioned. At high resolution mode (~10 m) the system
can be used in fully polarimetric mode over a swath width of 70 km. PALSAR offers another
attractive observation mode called the ScanSAR mode. By sacrificing spatial resolution (~100m)
PALSAR can provide a swath width of the order of about 250 - 350 km, most appropriate for
monitoring targets of large extents such as sea ice and rain forest [14]. Scheduled for launch in
2004, RADARSAT-2 will provide data continuity to RADARSAT I users, and offer data for new
applications. The RADARSAT-2 Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) is fully polarimetric and will be
able to acquire data at all or any of HH, VV, and HV/VH polarizations over a range of resolutions
from 3 to 100 to meters [15].

Apart from the contributions made in the preparation of these missions, the microwave remote
sensing community has been deeply involved in improving the knowledge in the field by analyzing
experimental data collected from satellite, airborne and ground based sensors, and is engaged in
developing more advanced forward models and inversion algorithms. To this end, studies have also
been performed by using data from sensors not specifically designed for land use such as SSM/T
and AMSU [16] and TRMM [17].

2
 The literature concerning microwave remote sensing terrestrial targets and the Earth processes is
rather extensive and cannot be entirely covered here. This article attempts at highlighting major
activities and important results in this area over the past decade.

2. Retrieval of Land parameters

The availability of a considerable amount of Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) and Multi-
frequency radiometric data, obtained in recent years from airborne and space-borne systems, has
stimulated significant research for interpreting data and investigating their potential in various For
environmental studies, the focus of research on microwave remote sensing land processes can be
categorized into: 1) land classification, 2) soil moisture retrieval, 3) forest and crop biomass
estimation, and 4) ice and snow pack parameter estimation.

2.1 Image processing and Land classification

The first step in most retrieval algorithms is image classification where the domain of the imaged
scene is divided into different general categories which in turn each may be subdivided into
statistically homogeneous domains. A number of different types of microwave image classifiers are
now routinely in use. These classification techniques implemented so far can be categorized into
statistical-based approaches, such as, the maximum likelihood classifier [18], unsupervised and
knowledge-based classifiers [19,20], and neural network classifiers which is a non-parametric
classification technique [21-23]. Also a methodology known as “decision tree” classification
technique has been used successfully for a wide range of classification problems but has not been
tested in detail by the remote sensing community [24]. Algorithms for edge and change detection
using polarimetric and/or multi-frequency SAR data have been developed and reported in [25,26].

Microwave land cover studies have been performed at high resolution with airborne, such as
JPL AirSAR [27] and CCRS C/X SAR [28], and satellite SAR, and at global scale mainly with
ERS-1/2 Wind scatterometer and the SSM/I. The potential of multi-frequency polarimetric SAR
data in separating agricultural fields from other types of surfaces and in discriminating among
classes of agricultural species has been demonstrated by various authors [e.g. 28]. Lee et al.[30]
exploited the land-use classification capabilities of fully polarimetric synthetic aperture radar (SAR)
versus dual-polarization and single-polarization SAR for P-, L-, and C-Band frequencies. A variety
of polarization combinations was investigated for application to crop and tree age classification.
The authors found that L-Band fully polarimetric SAR data are best for crop classification, but that
P-Band is best for forest age classification. This is because longer wavelength electromagnetic
waves provide higher penetration. Moreover, the HH and VV phase difference is important for crop
classification, but less important for tree age classification

Recent research addressed to urban areas by using multi-temporal analysis of SAR data, has
demonstrated that the coarse resolution of ERS images does not prevent the possibility of
characterizing these areas [31, 32]. Tupin et al. [33] established the usefulness of multiple SAR
views in road detection.

Significant efforts are also devoted to address land cover characterization on a global scale by
using ERS scatterometer data. These studies showed that the radar backscattering so was able to
describe the vegetation cycle in a semi-arid region and in boreal forests [34, 35]. A few significant
studies for distinguishing land surfaces and estimating quantitative parameters with the use of
spaceborne microwave radiometers were conducted using data from the Scanning Multichannel
Microwave Radiometer (SMMR) and the Special Sensor Microwave Imager SSM/I. The research
led to establishing empirical or semi-empirical rules for land surface classification [e.g.36, 37].
The 19-37 GHz spectral gradient and the 37 GHz brightness temperature Tb were effective for
3
freeze/thaw classification in the northern prairies and to characterize land surface in Greenland [38,
39]. Convenient indexes derived by the observed backscattering and brightness temperature from
the ERS scatterometer and the SSM/I made it possible monitoring seasonal variations in various
types of land surfaces [40, 41].

2.2 Soil Moisture

Soil moisture, and its temporal and spatial variations are influential parameters in both climatic
and hydrologic models. The measurement of soil moisture content (SMC) is one of the most
important targets of remote sensing, and significant amount of experimental and theoretical studies
have been carried out since the late 1970s. Soil dielectric constant at microwave frequencies
exhibits a strong dependence on the soil's moisture content. At L-band, for example, the real part of
the dielectric constant ranges from 3 for dry soil to about 25 for saturated soil. This variation can
result in a change on the order of 10 dB in the magnitude of the radar backscatter coefficient [42]
and of 100 K in the magnitude of the brightness temperature. An important component required in
the soil moisture inverse problem is the knowledge of the relationship between the soil dielectric
constant to its moisture content. Accurate empirical models and measurements for soil dielectric
constant are given in [43-45].

As mentioned earlier the radar backscatter and thermal emission at low microwave frequencies
are both sensitive to SMC. Vegetation cover is one major difficulty encountered in practice, which
masks the soil surface and reduces the radiometric and radar sensitivities to SMC. Controversial
opinions have been expressed regarding the superiority of the radiometric technique over radar, or
vice-versa. Du et al. [46] investigated the question by using radiative-transfer models for three types
of canopies, all at 1.5 GHz, and led to the conclusion that, as far as vegetation effects are concerned,
neither sensor can claim superiority over the other. From an experimental point of view, a certain
conclusion on this point has not yet been reached. The other disturbing factor that may significantly
affect the measurement of soil moisture is surface roughness. Also this quantity has been the subject
of many investigations. In general, it has been stated that backscatter is more sensitive than
emission to this factor.

2.2.1 Passive Systems

SMC research with microwave radiometers has been active since the late 1970s and has recently
been revitalized by new missions: the already in orbit AMSR-E and AMSR, and the planned
SMOS, selected by the European Space Agency (ESA) in the framework of the Earth Explorer
Opportunity Missions, and AQUARIUS selected by NASA as part of the Earth System Science
Pathfinder small-satellite program. The SMOS mission [47] is based on a dual polarized L-band
radiometer that uses aperture synthesis to achieve a ground resolution of 50 km. AQUARIUS [48],
based on a combination of L-band active and passive conical scanning instruments, will have
similar performance, and will use radar data to correct for surface roughness.

Most experimental research on soil moisture with passive systems has been carried out in the US
at GSFC in Greenbelt (MD), USDA in Beltsville (MD), JPL in Pasadena (CA), MIT in Cambridge
(MA), the University of Michigan (MI) and Princeton University (NJ); and in Europe at INRA in
Avignon (France), the University of Amsterdam (The Netherlands), and the CNR in Florence
(Italy). An excellent summary of recent research can be found in the special issue on Large Scale
Passive Microwave Remote Sensing of Soil Moisture of the IEEE Transaction on Geoscience and
Remote Sensing, published in August 2001. Large airborne experiments, called Southern Great
Plains Hydrology Experiments were conducted in the US in 1997 (SGP97) and 1999 (SGP99) to
address significant gaps in the knowledge and to validate retrieval algorithms designed for the
AMSR and the AMSR-E. In 1997 the L-band Electronically Scanned Thinned Array Radiometer
4
(ESTAR) was used for daily mapping of SMC over an area greater than 10 000 km2 for a one month
period. Results showed the consistency of both the retrieval algorithm and the instrument. Error
levels were on the order of 3% [49, 50]. In the SGP99, the Passive and Active L and S-band
airborne sensor (PALS)[51, 52], was used together with the C-band Polarimetric Scanning
Radiometer (PSR/C). The acquired data provided information on the sensitivities of multi-channel
low-frequency measurements to SMC for various vegetation conditions with water contents in the
0–2.5 kg m2 range. The 1.41-GHz horizontal-polarization channel showed the greatest sensitivity,
with a retrieval accuracy of 2.3%. PSR/C images showed spatial and temporal patterns consistent
with meteorological and soil conditions, and indicated that the AMSR instrument can provide
useful soil moisture information.

As a part of the same SGP experiment, an observing system simulation experiment (OSSE) was
carried out to assess the impact of land surface heterogeneity on the large-scale retrieval and
validation of soil moisture products, using the 6.925 GHz channel on the AMSR-E sensor. To do
this, a high-resolution hydrologic model, a land surface microwave emission model (LSMEM), and
an explicit simulation of the orbital and scanning characteristics for the AMSR-E were used.
Results within the 575 000 km2 Red-Arkansas River basin showed that, for surfaces with vegetation
water content below 0.75 kg/m2, two scale effects induced RMS errors of 1.7% into daily 60 km
AMSR-E soil moisture products, and RMS differences of 3.0% into 60 km comparisons of AMSR-
E soil moisture products and in situ field-scale measurements sampled on a fixed 25-km grid [53].

In the same area of SGP99, SSM/I and TMI satellite data were acquired over a two-week period
under excellent meteorological conditions [10]. The analysis of the resulting maps showed that
consistent satellite–based SMC retrieval is possible, and that data provided by the 6.9 GHz AMSR
channel should offer significant improvements.

The problem of the effective temperature of the emitting surface at 6.6 GHz was investigated in
[54], in which the magnitude of the long-term mean difference between actual and effective
temperature was estimated by using data from the Scanning Microwave Multi-channel Radiometer
(SMMR).

Various approaches have been considered for retrieving SMC from multi-frequency radiometric
data, and in particular from the AMSR-E measurements [55]. These approaches differ primarily in
the methods used to correct for the effects of soil texture, roughness, vegetation, and surface
temperature. A common assumption is that, over most land areas at the AMSR-E footprint scale, the
effects of variability in soil texture and roughness on the observed brightness temperature are small
compared with the effect of variability in SMC. This has been demonstrated in a number of model
sensitivity studies [e.g.56]. These parameters may therefore be approximated as non-variable. The
vegetation opacity coefficient can also be approximated as non-time-varying. However, it exhibits
some dependence on crop type at the field scale, and the assumption of spatial uniformity must be
considered a potential source of error. SMC retrieval approaches that have been investigated in
previous studies include:
• single channel retrieval with sequential corrections using ancillary data [57, 58];
• iterative forward model corrections using multi-channel brightness temperatures [56];
• correction using multi-frequency polarization indices [59];
• variations or combinations of the above methods [60, 61].
Other methods based on Bayesian iterative inversion of a forward model [62] or Neural Networks
[63,64] have also been investigated.

The algorithm implemented for AMSR-E [56] was based on a radiative transfer (RT) model; it
used an iterative, least-squares algorithm, based on six radiometric channels. The primary rationale
for this choice was that of minimizing the dependence on external ancillary data. The retrieval
5
model assumes that temperature and moisture are uniform over the sensing depths of the
frequencies used, and that the frequency dependence of the vegetation attenuation factor can be
adequately characterized. The first factor is aided by using nighttime (1:30 A.M., descending pass)
measurements when the temperature and moisture profiles are reasonably uniform. Analysis of
SMMR data taken over deserts and forests was used to obtain pre-launch estimates for AMSR-E.

Another algorithm, developed within the framework of the AMSR project, has been proposed in
[59]. This algorithm is based on the sensitivity to moisture of both the brightness temperature Tb
and the polarization index PI at C-band, and uses the polarization index at X-band to correct for the
effect of vegetation by means of a semi-empirical model. Comparing the values of SMC retrieved
from airborne measurements with those measured on the ground, the authors found a correlation
coefficient of 0.78 with the standard error of estimate SE = 4.31. The algorithm was further
validated by using data from the SMMR and the SSM/I. Another approach based on polarization
difference, which used a RT model to solve for SMC and vegetation optical depth simultaneously,
was tested with SMMR observations over several test sites in Illinois. Results compared well with
field observations of SMC and vegetation index data from satellite optical sensors [60].

Due to coarse ground resolution of spaceborne microwave, the resolution cell may include a non-
homogeneous surface. The effects of within-pixel variability were exploited by several authors who
found that errors in the retrieved SMC were generally negligible for a heterogeneous bare soil, and
less than 3% of the actual soil moisture for a pixel that is heterogeneous in vegetation and soil
moisture [65-71].

The thickness of soil layer through which moisture can be directly estimated by means of a
microwave radiometer has been investigated by many experimental studies. Most researchers have
come to the conclusion that, at L-band, this layer is about 5-10 cm. This result well matches the
requirements of those processes such as infiltration and evapotranspiration that take place within
this first layer of the soil medium. In other applications, where soil moisture profiles down to
several decimeters are necessary, microwave must be coupled to appropriate hydrological models.
The effectiveness of the Kalman filter for retrieving such a quantity was demonstrated in [72] by
using field observations and a simulation study. The usefulness of assimilating remotely sensed
measurements into land surface models was discussed in [73-75,]. Burke et al [70] explored the
potential for using low-resolution passive microwave in a two-dimensional Land Data Assimilation
System (LDAS) for estimating deep soil moisture from surface soil moisture. Houser et al. [73]
investigated four-dimensional (4-D) soil moisture assimilation using in situ and remote sensing
observations. A refined a 4-D algorithm that account for model errors and fully incorporates
process dynamics into the estimates was developed in [75].

Simultaneously to experimental research theoretical investigations were performed to interpret

experimental data and to provide tools for the retrievals of land parameters. The classical approach
to compute the brightness temperature of soils is the radiative transfer theory, which can treat
multiple scattering in a medium consisting of random discrete scatterers. However, the theory
assumes independent scattering, and then disregards coherent effects. If the temperature of the
medium is constant and the energy conservation holds, the emissivity can be expressed as 1 minus
the reflectivity and the problem of computing the brightness temperature is brought back to the
computation of the bistatic scattering coefficients. Most of model developed for soil and vegetation
are based on this method. The problem of computing the brightness temperature of land surfaces
has been extensively treated in the three volumes of the recent book by Tsang and Kong and their
collaborators [76-78]

An evaluation of classical methods (Physical Optics, Small Perturbation and Integral Equation)
to compute emissivity of rough soils from the bistatic scattering coefficient was performed by
6
comparing model simulations with experimental data obtained at C-, and X -band on an artificial
dielectric surface with the same statistical properties used in the model [79]. The results showed that
on relatively smooth surfaces (height standard deviation HStD= 0.4 cm) all the models fitted quite
well vertical component and underestimated horizontal component of emissivity. On rougher
surface (HStD = 2.5. cm) IEM model slightly underestimated the horizontal component and
overestimated the vertical component.

Li et al. [ 80] have recently proposed a rigorous solution of the problem of computing emissivity
from a two-dimensional (2-D) wet soil with random rough surface by applying a physics-based two-
grid method combined with sparse matrix canonical grid method. The advantage of this approach is
that unlike analytic approximations such as Kirchhoff method and the Small Perturbation Method,
this method solves the 3-D Maxwell equations numerically. The use of fast numerical method
presented in the paper shows that numerical simulations of emissivities can be calculated with
modest CPU. Thus, the results of extensive numerical simulations can be directly applied to passive
microwave remote sensing of soil moisture.

2.2.2 Active Systems

This possibility of monitoring soil moisture changes using SAR data has stimulated a large
number of studies focused on establishing a relationship between the observed SAR response and
surface SMC. On a homogeneous soil with perfectly smooth surface, scattering of electromagnetic
waves is totally forward and depends on permittivity of the medium. On a rough surface radiation is
scattered in various directions and also generates backscattering. Thus, two basic properties
determine the backscatter response observed by the SAR system: the permittivity of the medium
and the roughness characteristics of the surface. Both parameters are in turn related to different
geophysical parameters of the soil. With the advent of the polarimetric SAR, radar remote sensing
of soil moisture has attained significant prominence in the past two decades. Initially extensive
experimental studies using polarimetric scatterometers were carried to establish a relationship
between radar response and the surface roughness and soil moisture [81] Extensive field
experiments have also been conducted to examine retrieval algorithms ranging from simple
analytical to regression/empirical models [82-84]. For example the already mentioned SGP97 was
conducted using a variety of active and passive remote sensing tools on different platforms (truck,
aircraft, and satellite) [85, 86].

Careful experiments under laboratory conditions or large field experiment all indicate that in
order to retrieve SMC, more than a single backscatter observation is needed to separate the effects
surface roughness parameters from the moisture content. Often times only the surface rms height,
and in some cases surface correlation length, are sought for the surface roughness parameters. In
reality the surface power spectral density is the quantity that affects the radar response, however,
retrieving surface parameters other than the rms height and correlation coefficient seems to be
beyond the realm of possibility for radar remote sensing tools. This implies that, the experimental
regressions between backscattering coefficient and SMC presented in the literature are both time
and site dependent and, thus, difficult to generalize.

SIR-C/X-SAR data, pointed out that, in the scale of surface roughness typical of agricultural
areas, a co-polar L-band sensor provides the highest information content for estimating SMC and
surface roughness. The sensitivity to SMC and surface roughness for individual fields was rather
low since both parameters affected the radar signal. However, in considering data averaged over a
relatively wide area that included several fields, the correlation to temporal variation of SMC was
significant, since the effects of spatial roughness variations were smoothed [87]. On the other hand,
the sensitivity to surface roughness was better manifested at a spatial scale, integrating in time to
reduce the effects of moisture variation [87]. The retrieval of both soil moisture and surface
7
roughness from multi frequency polarimetric data was performed with good results by means of
semi-empirical models [88,89], or by inverting the IEM model [90].

The current limits of soil moisture retrieval from ERS-SAR data were analyzed in [89] by using
synthetic datasets, as well as a large pan-European database of ground and ERS-1 and ERS-2
measurements. The results from this study indicated that no more than two soil moisture classes
could reliably be distinguished using the ERS configuration, even for the limited roughness range
considered.

In hydrological modelling of runoffs and water balance various input data such as land use, soil
moisture, and digital elevation terrain models (DEM) can be acquired or estimated by the use of
remote sensing techniques. A good example of ERS SAR data assimilation in an integrated flood-
forecasting model to translate rainfall into runoff is given in [91]. In the model, DEM derived from
interferometric SAR data are used for a static description of a watershed, and dynamic model
variables are obtained from surface soil moisture distribution estimated from SAR backscattering
data.

Several scientists investigated the retrieval of SMC on a large scale by using ERS Wind
Scatterometer Data [e.g. 92, 93]. The results illustrated the applicability of these data for measuring
land parameters and offered the potential of deriving a physically-based alternative to empirical
indices for estimating regionally-variable parameters.

As mentioned earlier, apart from surface roughness parameters, existence of short vegetation on
the surface makes the retrieval of SMC very complicated. Vegetation cover and its temporal
variations is believed to be the major stumbling block in monitoring SMC variations using
microwave. A very complicated, coherent scattering model that accounts for scattering from rough
surface, vegetation cover, and their near-field interaction is demonstrated in [94]. The inverse of
this model is then used to demonstrate its ability for estimating the physical parameters of a soybean
field including soil moisture from a polarimetric set of AIRSAR images.

2.3 Snow

Snow cover constitutes the largest of any component of the cryosphere and plays a significant
role in the global climate, climate response to global changes, and can be viewed as a sensitive
indicator of variations in the climate system. Remote sensing instruments have been shown to be the
most appropriate tools for monitoring snow parameters over large extended areas. In addition to
global climate studies, remote sensing of snow packs is of great importance in forecasting the snow-
water runoffs. The current available snow products are based on single sensors, thus the temporal
and spatial limitations are given by the sensor characteristics. For the users to be able to utilize
remote sensing data in operational monitoring and management of snow, the data must fulfill the
temporal and spatial resolution and accuracy requirements. The availability of data from new
satellite sensors such as ENVISAT, AQUA and ADEOSII should provide the scientific community
with important tools to develop and bring into operational use remote sensing systems both for
regional and global mapping.

From the electromagnetic point of view a snow medium can be considered as a dense
heterogeneous medium composed of amorphous interconnected matrix of ice particles, air voids,
thin film of water on ice surfaces, and pockets of water among ice particles. Existing theoretical
models for snow medium can be categorized into two major groups: 1) field-based techniques
(Maxwell’s equations), and 2) techniques based on the law of conservation of power (radiative
transfer). Field-based techniques are either formulated based on single scattering or dielectric
8
fluctuation formulations and then the Distorted Born Approximation (DBA) used to find the
solution [77]. Although obtaining the solution for DBA is straightforward, some particular material
characteristics, such as the dielectric correlation function, are exceedingly difficult to obtain.
Measurement techniques for characterizing this correlation function involve a very arduous process
[77]. It has been shown [95] that the correlation function must be known with high accuracy,
including its tail region, to obtain accurate prediction of scattering. At higher frequencies (X-band
and up) formulations based on the single scattering theory would fail because the size of the
particles forming a snow medium becomes a considerable fraction of the wavelength and they
occupy an appreciable volume fraction (>10 %). In this case an appropriate approach is the radiative
transfer technique. Dense Medium Radiative Transfer Theory (DMRT) under the quasi-crystalline
approximation with coherent potential and Strong fluctuation Theory (SFT) are the most rigorous
approaches to model microwave emission and scattering from snow packs at high frequencies [77,
96-98]. These approaches take into account the coherence of the scattering from random scatterers,
and satisfy the energy conservation constraint. An exhaustive description of the two theories can be
found in [76-78]. Recent measurements performed in the Italian Alps using multi-frequency passive
sensors demonstrated the capability of the DMRT to represent experimental data [99].

An approach to compute the effective permittivity of wet snow by using strong fluctuation
theory was shown in [100]. In this work snow was treated as a two-phase mixture, where the water
was considered as inclusions embedded in dry snow. The shape of the scatterers was taken into
account by using an anisotropic azimuthally symmetric correlation function. Model results were
found to be in good agreement with experimental data. Although the DMRT method is quite
rigorous, accurate determination of fundamental quantities of this formulation, such extinction
matrix and phase matrices is not straightforward. Recently numerical approaches for determination
of these quantities have been developed [101, 102]. In addition to numerical methods, quantities
such as the extinction matrix can be measured experimentally as shown in [103]. Apart from the
theoretical approaches addressed above, purely empirical approaches may be considered [104];
these, however, have the obvious limitation that the entire parameter space of the target cannot be
sufficiently well known to allow estimation of more specific target properties. To circumvent the
difficulties associated with the above-mentioned techniques and to offer some means by which
realistic modeling of dense media might be accomplished, a new hybrid experimental /theoretical
modeling scheme is introduced in [105]

2.3.1 Passive systems

The capability of microwave radiometers to monitor snow parameters and seasonal variations in
snow cover has been the subject of several experimental activities carried out since the late 1970s
using ground-based, airborne, and satellite systems [e.g. 106-111]. Measurements carried out
between 3 GHz and 90 GHz have pointed out the sensitivity of microwave emission to snow type
and snow water equivalent (SWE). At the lower frequencies of the microwave band, emission from
a layer of dry snow is mostly influenced by the soil conditions below the snow pack and by snow
layering. At the higher frequencies, however, the role-played by volume scattering increases, and
emissivity appears sensitive to SWE. If snow melts, the presence of liquid water in the surface layer
causes a strong increase in emissivity, especially at high frequencies [106, 108]. The average
spectra of the brightness temperature show that the Tb of dry and refrozen snow decreases with
frequency, whereas the Tb of wet snow increases [99, 106].

In general, microwave radiometers tend to underestimate the snow area compared with estimates
from visible-infrared maps [109]. In addition, the errors in estimates of snow volume tend to be
large, with standard errors of 20 mm SWE or more [110]. For proper water resource management
and climate modeling greater accuracy in a local scale and on a daily basis is required.
Unfortunately, the spatial resolution of the SMMR and SSM/I instruments tends to limit their
9
effective use to global-scale studies. Furthermore, currently available SSM/I data are acquired twice
daily only at high latitudes, with a more restrictive coverage at lower latitudes. The AMSR and
AMSR-E will help to overcome some of these drawbacks.

In general, high frequency microwave emission from dry snow increases as snow depth (SD)
increases. However, Tb measured by the SSM/I within the former Soviet Union during the 1987–
1988 winter period showed dramatic deviations from this pattern. Indeed, in the middle of winter,
Tb approached a minimum and then began to increase despite the fact that the SD remained
constant or continued to grow [111]. Model results suggested that the increase in Tb was due to a
decrease in the single scattering albedo as the snowpack aged. This decrease in the albedo was
related to changes in the snow crystalline structure due to metamorphism. The midwinter minimum
of Tb caused ambiguity in the relationship between SWE and SD on Tb at high frequencies and
substantial non-linearity of this dependence at intermediate frequencies. This midwinter minimum
of Tb prevents the use of a simple, regression-type algorithm to derive the SD and SWE from Tb
measurements.

Several approaches have been proposed for retrieving snow parameters by means of empirical
algorithms such as the Spectral Polarization Difference (SPD), linear regressions, or iterative
inversion of forward models [110, 112-114]. The inversion technique based on the HUT snow
microwave emission model developed in [115] and tested with SSM/I data showed SWE retrieval
accuracies higher than those obtained with empirical approaches.

Since microwave radiation is sensitive to both snow depth and density, estimating SD alone
requires that assumptions be made about the snow density. For average seasonal and global SD
estimation “static” algorithms, which assume temporally constant grain size and density have
worked reasonably well [116]. However, in the cases of rapid changes in internal snowpack
properties, estimates have been subject to errors. Dynamic algorithms, based on DMRT combined
with density and grain radius evolution models, have demonstrated their superiority, in that they
tend to underestimate the snow depth less than the static algorithms do [117,118].

Other studies were addressed to the combined use of electromagnetic and hydrological models
[119, 120]. A three component retrieval algorithm developed in [120] included a DMRT model, a
physically-based snow hydrology model (SHM) that incorporates meteorological and topographical
data, and a neural network (NN). The DMRT model related physical snow parameters to Tb. The
SHM simulated the mass and heat balance, and provided initial guesses for the NN; the NN was
used to speed up the inversion of parameters. Inversion results obtained by applying the algorithm
to measurements at 19 and 37 GHz V and H polarization compared favorably with ground truth
observations.

2.3.2 Active systems

A great deal of experimental and theoretical work pertaining to the radar response of snow has been
carried out. Similar to the soil moisture problem, initially very careful experimentation with snow
using radar systems over a wide range of radar attributes and snow conditions have been carried out
to examine the feasibility, sensitivity, and accuracy of radar snow parameter retrievals [121-124]. In
addition, substantial efforts have been devoted to characterizing and measuring the very complex
dielectric constant behavior of snow with varying snow wetness [125-127].

Snow parameter retrieval is mainly confounded by the complexity and dynamics of its structure
and dielectric property. To elaborate on this consider a typical target of snow-covered ground.
Target parameters that influence the radar response and that must be potentially considered include:
1) rough surface parameters associated with the top surface of the snow, 2) the snow volume itself,
10
i.e., density, particle size distribution; vertical distributions of these properties within the snowpack,
3) snow wetness, when present, may well be a very complex function of time and depth, and finally
4) the parameters of the ground beneath such as dielectric constant, roughness parameters, and local
slope.
Controlled experiments have concluded that microwave frequencies offer the highest potential
for the retrieval of gross snow properties such as depth or water equivalent, parameters that are
especially important for hydrological applications. More specifically, a combination of L- and Ku-
band radars, with the lower frequency system measuring the parameters of the underlying ground
surface and the higher frequency radar monitoring the snow volume is found the be an optimal
configuration [122].

To examine the potential of active systems in mapping the extent of wet snow, experiments have
been carried out by using both airborne and satellite SAR systems. For example, significant
seasonal changes of Radarsat and ERS SAR backscatter from snow-covered surfaces in the
Austrian Alps have been observed, which were mainly caused by variations of the snow liquid
water content and of the surface roughness [128]. A comparison of snow maps from SAR and
Landsat-5 Thematic Mapper images showed good agreement in areas of continuous snow cover,
whereas, near the snow line the SAR data slightly underestimated the snow extent.

Algorithms have been implemented for deriving the snow-covered areas (SCA) using change
detection [128-130]. These studied showed that, contrary to wet snow, the effect of dry snow in
Alpine regions on C-band backscattering is too small to detect snow cover and that a higher
frequency would be necessary for snow retrievals [129]. However, SWE of dry snow was
successfully retrieved on relatively smooth surfaces from the difference between the signal of the
snow-free surfaces and the signal of the soil below the snow cover which depends on the depth of
the frozen soil layer. The latter is, in turn, related to the mass of snow [130]. Simulations obtained at
a global scale with a model developed on the basis of data obtained from Topex Poseidon Altimeter
showed that Ku-band provides more accurate snow depth determinations than does C-band [131] as
predicated earlier by the controlled experiments.

The analysis of multi-frequency polarimetric SIR-C/X-SAR data showed that frequency and
polarization behavior of radar backscattering coefficients of a snow pack are very important for
characterizing the physical state of snow and ice and for separating the accumulation and ablation
areas on glaciers [132]. The same data pointed out that the relationship between SWE and
backscattering coefficients at C- and X-band could be either positive or negative [133, 134].
Therefore, development of a simple empirical relationship between radar and snow parameters is
unrealistic. Instead, snow depth and particle size were estimated from a physics-based first order
backscattering model through the analysis of the importance of each scattering term and its
sensitivity to snow properties.

In addition to the conventional backscattering analysis, recent works demonstrated the potential of
the interferometric SAR techniques (INSAR) for separating bare soil from wet snow, and wet snow
from dry snow . A new approach to retrieve information on the changes in SWE from the phase
difference in InSAR data was introduced in [135]. In the case of dry snow, the backscattering is
from the snow ground interface. However, the refraction of radar wave in dry snow results in an
interferometric phase difference, which is related to changes in snow depth and density. InSAR was
also found also to be a useful tool for monitoring the motion of glaciers [136, 137]. When this
approach is limited by phase noise, intensity tracking, based on patch intensity cross-correlation
optimization, and coherence tracking, based on patch coherence optimization, have been
successfully employed [138]

11
 The utility of SAR data in estimating snow cover area under wet snow conditions is important
for river flow prediction, especially in applications such as hydro-power production and flood
prevention. An assimilation technique which combines SAR observations to runoff model by
applying a constrained iteration procedure and forward modeling of SAR observations was
developed in and tested on a site located in the Northern Finland [139]. The results show that
satellite SAR data can improve the performance of discharge forecasting models during the snow
melt period. Furthermore, the results indicated that the optimum assimilation performance was
obtained when the regional parametrization was changed based on remote sensing data.

Global observations with active systems were carried out by using scatterometric and altimetric
data from satellite. The potential of a spaceborne Ku-band scatterometer to monitor global snow
cover was demonstrated performed by using data from the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) scatterometer (NSCAT) operated on the Advanced Earth Observing
Satellite (ADEOS) from September 1996 to June 1997 [140]. Sensitivity of Ku-band backscatter to
snow conditions was illustrated with the dramatic change over the U.S. Northern Plains and the
Canadian prairie region corresponding to the snow event leading to the 1997 “Flood of the
Century”.

2.4 Forest Stands

A large portion of the earth's surface is covered with vegetation of many different species and
canopy configurations. Vegetation cover on the earth's surface is an important factor in the study of
global change. The total vegetation biomass is the most influential input to models for terrestrial
ecosystems and atmospheric chemistry. The ability to monitor canopy parameters, such as total
vegetation biomass, total leaf area index, and soil moisture content, is of vital importance to the
study of carbon cycle and global warming. Microwave remote sensing techniques offer a unique
opportunity to probe vegetation canopies at various depths by operating at different frequencies.

2.4.1 Passive systems

Theoretical investigations have shown that passive microwave remote sensing can contribute
significantly to the global study of soil and vegetation parameters in forests [141, 142]. However,
microwave radiometers on satellites are hampered by the coarse ground resolution. On the other
hand, airborne sensors provide a much better resolution possible, and can be useful for detailed
analyses of some particular areas and surveillance of forests subject to fires or other sudden
changes. Moreover, the next generation sensors (SMOS, AMSR, AMSR-E) will be able to attain a
much more enhanced resolution. At present, only some experimental data are available. These data
have mostly been collected in Northern Europe on boreal coniferous forests using satellite [143,
144] and airborne data [145]. Recently, L-band radiometer measurements of coniferous forests
were performed by flying ESTAR radiometer over loblolly pine stands in Eastern Virginia. The
images of the area showed a strong correlation between forest biomass and the measured brightness
temperature Tb [146].
Airborne radiometric measurements in a frequency range from L- to Ka- band were carried out
over six broad-leaved and one coniferous forests in Italy [147]. Ground-truth data of the major tree
parameters were available for the same tree stands. The analysis of the collected data indicated that
the use of microwave emission at the highest frequencies made it possible to identify some forest
types, whereas L-band emission was more closely related to tree biomass. Other relationships were
found between emission and leaf area index, basal area, woody volume, and crown transparency.
The significant relationship between L-band emission and woody volume was further analyzed by
means of a discrete element RT model. The analysis showed that the main contribution to the total
emission was due to the elements in tree crowns, and in particular to primary and medium branches,
12
while double reflection from soil was negligible. Simulations performed at L-band by using a model
validated with experimental data at C-band confirmed these results, and pointed out an appreciable
sensitivity to soil moisture, even under developed forests [148].

2.4.2 Active systems

The use of polarimetric, interferometric, and polarimetric interferometric SARs to survey forested
areas has become increasingly important in recent years [149-153]. Experimental studies conducted
since the early 1990s with spaceborne and airborne SAR systems led to the conclusion that the radar
backscatter results from scattering and/or attenuation of leaves, branches, and trunk, leading to
indirect relationship between the radar measurements and the biomass parameters. The greater
temporal stability of forest compared with many other types of land cover presented a means of
mapping forest areas using multi-temporal data [154, 155]. However, the comparison of results
obtained over different forest sites is difficult due to differences in stand characteristics, validation
procedures, parameters used as an evaluation criteria, selection of stands, etc. Stand size seems to
explain most of the variability of the results, and although an attempt to suggest procedures to
convert results from one stand size to another, there still are open issues to be addressed [156].

It has been shown that the radar measurements are no longer sensitive to biomass variation after
a certain amount of biomass values, which depend on the electromagnetic frequency. This limit was
estimated to be about 30 - 50 tons/ha at C- and L band (5 and 1.2 GHz) and about 150-200 tons/ha
at P- band (0.4GHz) for both evergreen and coniferous forests [151, 157-159]. In general, the use
of P-band channels can provide better estimates of stem biomass, while L-band channels can
estimate the crown biomass more accurately [29, 153]. However, the most appropriate approach for
estimating forest biomass is the use of lower frequency systems such as the VHF (20–90 MHz)
Airborne Imaging Radar CARABAS. Using this radar, signal saturation was not observed up to 900
m3 ha. However, the sensitivity to the volume was high in the range of 0-500 m3 ha (e.g., 1 to 1.5
dB for 50 m3 ha), whereas it was reduced beyond 500 m3 ha [160]. The accuracy of the estimated
stem volume retrieved using these data and a new textural method based on the variations of the
standard deviation of the backscattering coefficient was comparable to that of the ground truth
[161]. The other forest parameters could not be estimated with such good accuracy, but this was
partly due to using the dominant values instead of averages. Also, it was found that, in the case of
storms the backscattering, for a given stem volume, is considerably higher for wind-thrown forests
than for unaffected forests. This indicates that VHF SAR imagery has potential for mapping wind-
thrown forests [162]

A key component in the study of microwave remote sensing of vegetation is the understanding of
the spectral behaviour of dielectric constant of vegetation. Through careful experimentation and
examination of dielectric properties of water, bound water, and dry vegetation an approximate
empirical formulation for dielectric constant of vegetation as a function of moisture content and
temperature is reported in [163]. The validity of this model is examined by independent
measurement techniques and its accuracy is found to be with 10% of the measured quantities [164].
Extensive measurements of complex permittivity for various parts of a conifer are reported in [165].

In the early forest scattering models, the forest structure is simplified in terms of a homogeneous
random medium and the single scattering theory is applied to account for the scattering and
propagation in the random medium [166-168]. For example, in [166] and [167] vector radiative
transfer is used to calculate the bistatic scattering from a forest stand represented by a two-layer
random medium. In a medium where particle size, such as tree trunks and large branches are
comparable to the extent of the medium, RT model may not produce satisfactory results. Besides an
important feature of a high fidelity scattering model is to preserve the structure of vegetation as
different species of vegetation have their own unique structures and this is shown to have
13
considerable effect at P- and L-band. An important effect of the vegetation structure is the
coherence effect caused by the relative position of the vegetation particles, which produce certain
interference pattern. To preserve the coherence effects and the non-uniform attenuation and
scattering profile also a Monte Carlo coherent scattering model for forest canopies is presented in
[169]. In this model realistic looking tree structures are constructed using a stochastic fractal
algorithm and distorted Born approximation is used for scattered field calculation. Common in all
forest scattering and emission models are scattering formulations for broad leaves, needles, twigs,
branches and tree trunks [170 -175].

Recent advancements in the field of radar interferometry have opened a new door to the radar
remote sensing of vegetation. In addition to the backscattering coefficient, radar interferometers
measure two additional quantities that contain target information [176]. These quantities are the
correlation coefficient and the interferogram phase. The premise of this investigation with regard to
retrieving vegetation parameters from INSAR data stems from the fact that the location of the
scattering phase center of a target is a strong function of the target structure. For example the
scattering phase centers of non-vegetated terrain are located at or slightly below the surface,
whereas for vegetated terrain, these scattering phase centers lie at or above the surface depending
upon the wavelength of the SAR and the vegetation attributes. In recent years, some experimental
and theoretical studies have been carried out to demonstrate the potential of InSAR in retrieving
forest parameters. For example in [177 - 180] experimental data using ERS-1 SAR repeat-pass and
DO-SAR single-pass are employed to show the applications of SAR interferometry for
classification of forest types and retrieval of tree heights. The accuracy achieved in separating
forest/ non-forest areas, by using a single pair of repeat-pass SAR interferometry, was on the order
of 80-85%. Similar or slightly better classification accuracies are reported with multi-temporal
backscattering coefficients using C-band ERS data [154].

Also simplified theoretical models have been developed to establish relationships between the
interferogram phase and correlation coefficient to the physical parameters of vegetation and the
underlying soil surface [181, 182]. A far more accurate model for estimation of scatter phase center
location based on the Monte Carlo simulation of fractal trees was developed later [183]. This model
accounts for the exact structure, shape, size, number density, and orientation distributions of
vegetation in a desired forest stands and its accuracy was tested against JPL TOPSAR [184] data.

Whereas radar polarimetry provides an enhanced capability in recovering target structure

anisotropy (preferred orientation), and SAR interferometry reveals the target penetrability and
vertical extent, a polarization agile interferometric SAR has the combined capability and can
provide the target structure parameters far more conveniently than the individual sensors.
Polarimetric target decomposition techniques have also been suggested and successfully
demonstrated using polarimetric/interferometric SARs [185, 186]. More sophisticated techniques
using interferometric SARs, such as multi-baseline INSAR, have also been tried showing
significant potential for retrieving vegetation parameters [187, 188].

Through the use of multi-frequency observations, polarization diversity of imaging polarimetry,

estimation of the scattering phase center height, and textural information, retrieval of targets
parameters in an imaged scene is possible. The study of the inversion problems has been of great
importance from the onset of the remote sensing science [189, 190]. To make the inverse scattering
problem tractable, initially overly simplistic forward models were used [191]. With the availability
of significant SAR and accurate ground-truth data statistical and regression inversion methods have
been investigated [192]. Like most empirical models success of these techniques are somewhat
limited to the range of system and measured target parameter space. Other systematic inversion
algorithms such as neural network approaches [193] and genetic algorithms [194] using more
sophisticated forward models have been developed.
14
 2.5 Short Vegetation Crops

As mentioned in the previous section, vegetation biomass plays a very important role in the
earth’s climate dynamics and the atmosphere's carbon cycle. However, another vegetation class,
which must not be overlooked, is the category of herbaceous vegetation, both natural and cultural.
At approximately 30 million square kilometers, this vegetation type covers 20% of the earth's dry
surface, accounting for more than 30 billion metric tons of total biomass. An understanding on a
global scale of the biophysical parameters, which describe this vegetation, is thus highly desirable.

Although the sensitivity of microwave emission to crop type and biomass has been demonstrated
in several investigations, ground resolution of passive systems is inadequate for operational systems
and recent research has been mostly addressed to the study of SAR data.

The large amount of SAR data collected in different times made it possible to evaluate the
potential of multi-temporal analysis in timing critical phases of the crop growth cycle and in
separating broad-leaf crops from cereals (small leaf) [29, 195, 196]. The radar response to biomass
of these two types of crops showed that for crops characterized by small plant constituents such as
wheat (narrow leaf crops), σo decreased as the biomass increased, whereas the trend was quite the
opposite in plants with bigger leaves and stems such as sunflowers (broad leaf crops) [197]. Model
simulations confirmed the trends of the experimental data and made it possible to evaluate the
contribution of single plant constituents to total backscattering. In “broad leaf” crops, σo from stalks
dominated at L- band, whilst, at C-band, leaves made a significant contribution to scattering and
attenuated the contribution of stems. In “narrow leaf” crops, the contributions of leaves and stalks
were comparable and close to total backscattering. The analysis of the contributions of each
scattering mechanism showed that, in general, double scattering was the most important
contribution for stalks, direct scattering prevailed for leaves, and soil contribution was appreciable
even for well-developed crops [198].

On the other hand multi-frequency observations pointed out that, for remote sensing of crops,
low microwave frequencies (< 5GHz) are recommended and therefore the coherence effects must
be carefully accounted for. The model developed in [199] may be among the first to address the
coherence effects caused by the vegetation structure. Very careful coherent model for grass-type
vegetation, such as, a wheat field and measurements over the entire growing season are reported in
[200-202]. Simulations performed with a coherent model confirmed the experimental relations
found between backscattering and biomass of broad and narrow leaf crops and demonstrated the
contribution of the InSAR observation in crop discrimination [203].

A model based on the method of moments and Monte Carlo simulation for similar crops showed
the importance of near-field scattering and coherence on the target radar response [204]. In [205] an
analytical polarimetric coherent scattering model for short branching vegetation, such a soybean
crop, was developed that accounted for the second-order near-field interaction among particles as
well as the underlying rough surface and particles. In this paper soil moisture and vegetation
parameters retrieval was demonstrated using data obtained from JPL AIRSAR.

A number of studies have been carried out aimed at using remote sensing data to improve the
accuracy of crop functioning models in predicting the yield and the evolution of canopy variables
through the crop cycle. Two main approaches have been used and reported in [206]: In the first one
some crop variables are retrieved by inverting the radiative transfer RT models, and used to force or
to recalibrate some well-identified parameters of the crop functioning model. In the second
approach a crop model is coupled with a RT model to simulate the whole process from canopy
functioning to remote sensing data, by fitting simulated to observed results. The assimilation of
15
optical and radar data in a coupled crop+RT model was tested by [207] using data acquired over
wheat fields. The study showed that assimilating optical and radar data into a crop model is
feasible. However, in this case the introduction of radar data did not improve the accuracy of the
results.

3. Final Remarks

In this article we tried to provide the reader with a comprehensive overview of the recent techniques
and approaches in microwave remote sensing of land. Both analytical and experimental remote
sensing methods for active and passive systems were surveyed. It is important to mention here that
the wealth of knowledge in this area is overwhelming and it quickly became obvious to us that we
could not possibly include all the significant contributions reported in the literature in the limited
space of this article. This fact also indicates the great progress made in the science and technology
of microwave remote sensing over the past decade, such as those related to the operational
applications of SAR Interferometry. Despite this significant progress, there are still considerable
challenging problems for which the existing remote sensing tools and methodologies do not provide
solutions with desirable accuracies as requested by the users. It is on these problems, such as land
classification and the measurements of land hydrological parameters on a routine basis, that further
research need to be focussed. It is believed that further investments in advanced space-based
remote sensing instrumentations with new functionalities and modalities, such as low frequency
active and passive systems aboard of satellites with short revisit time, will provide the scientific
community with sufficiently large, precise, and frequent databases to allow for accurate and
consistent target parameters retrieval.

16
5. References

[1] http://southport.jpl.nasa.gov/desc/SIRCdesc.html

[2] http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/srtm

[3] F. M. Anderson and A.J. Lewis, Manual of Remote Sensing, Principles and Applications of
Imaging Radar, John Wiley & Sons, 3rd Edition, 1998

[4] Cloude, S.R., and E. Pottier, “A review of target decomposition theorems in radar polarimetry,”
IEEE Transaction on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-34, 2 , pp. 498 –518, March 1996.

[5] Rosen, P.A.; S. Hensley; I.R. Joughin, F.K. Li; S.N. Madsen; E. Rodriguez, R.M. Goldstein,
“Synthetic aperture radar interferometry,” Proceedings of the IEEE , Vol. 88, No. 3 , pp. 333 –
382, March 2000.

[6] http://envisat.esa.int/

[7] A. Bentamy, Y. Quilfen, and P. Queuffeulou, “Calibration of the ERS-1 Scatterometer C-Band
Model,” Technical. Rep., IFREMER DRO/OS, Institute Francaise de Recherche pour
l'Exploitation de la Mer, France, January 1994.

[8] A. Ferretti, C. Prati, F. Rocca, “Permanent Scatterers in SAR Interferometry”, IEEE

Transaction on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-39, 1, January 2001, pp. 8-20.

[9] C. Colesanti, A. Ferretti, C. Prati, F. Rocca, “Full Exploitation of the ERS Archive: Multi Data
Set Permanent Scatterers Analysis,” IEEE Transaction on Geoscience and Remote Sensing,
GRS-41, 7, July 2003, pp. 1685-1701.

[10] http://www.space.gc.ca/csa_sectors/earth_environment/radarsat/default.asp

[11] T. Kawanishi, T. Seyai, Y. Ito, K. Imaoka, T. Takeshima, Y. Ishido, A. Shibata, M. Miura,

H. Inahata, and R. W. Spencer, “The Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for the Earth
Observing System (AMSR-E), NASDA’s Contribution to the EOS for Global Energy and
Water Cycle Studies,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-41, 2,
February 2003, pp. 184-194.

[12] A. Shibata, “AMSR/AMSR-E Algorithm development and data distribution,” Proc. IEEE
2000 International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS 2000), Honolulu,
Hawaii, 24-28 July 2000.

[13] http://sharaku.eorc.nasda.go.ip/AMSR/index_e.htm

[14] http://alos.nasda.go.jp/2/palsar-e.html

[15] http://www.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca/ccrs/data/satsens/radarsat/rsat2/radnews_e.html

[16] C. Prigent, J.-P. Wigneron, W. B. Rossow, and J. R. Pardo-Carrion, “Frequency and

Angular Variations of Land Surface Microwave Emissivities: Can We Estimate SSM/T and

17
 AMSU Emissivities from SSM/I Emissivities?,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote
Sensing, GRS-38, 5, September 2000, pp. 2373-2386.

[17] T. J. Jackson and A. Y. Hsu, “Soil Moisture and TRMM Microwave Imager Relationships
in the Southern Great Plains 1999 (SGP99) Experiment,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience
and Remote Sensing, GRS-39, 8, August 2001, pp. 1632-1642.

[18] Y. Jhung and P. H. Swain, “ Bayesian Contextual Classification Based on Modified M-

Estimates and Markov Random Fields,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote
Sensing, GRS-34, 1, January 1996, pp. 68-75.

[19] L. E. Pierce, F. T. Ulaby, K. Sarabandi, and M. C. Dobson,”Knowledge-Based

Classification of Polarimetric SAR Images”, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote
Sensing, GRS-32, 5, September 1994, pp. 1081-1086.

[20] J. J. van Zyl, “Unsupervised Classification of Scattering Behavior Using Radar Polarimetry
Data”, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-27, 1, January 1989, pp.
36-45.

[21] J. A. Benediction, P. H. Swain, and O. K. Erase, "Neural Network Approaches Versus

Statistical Methods in Classification of Multisource Remote Sensing Data," IEEE Transactions
on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-28, 4, July 1990, pp. 540-551.

[22] L. E. Pierce, K. Sarabandi, and F. T. Ulaby, “Application of an Artificial Neural Network in

a Canopy Scattering Model Inversion,” International Journal of Remote Sensing, 15, 16, 1994,
pp. 3263-3270.

[23] P. M. Atkinson and A. R. L. Tatnall, “Neural Networks in Remote Sensing,” International

Journal of Remote Sensing, 18, 4, 1997, pp. 699-709.

[24] R. S. Safavian and D. Landgrebe, "A Survey of Decision Tree Classifier Methodology,"
IEEE Transactions of Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 21, 1991, pp. 660-675.

[25] J. Schou, H.Skriver, A. A Nielsen, and K. Conradsen, “CFAR Edge Detector for
Polarimetric SAR Images,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-41, 1,
January 2003, pp. 20-32.

[26] K. Conradsen, A. A Nielsen, J. Schou, and H. Skriver, “A test statistics in the complex
Wishart Distribution and its applications to Cahnge Detection in polarimetric SAR Data,” IEEE
Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-41, 1, January 2003, pp. 4-19.

[27] http://airsar.jpl.nasa.gov/data/

[28] http://www.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca/ccrs/data/satsens/airborne/sarbro/sbmain_e.html

[29] P. Ferrazzoli, S. Paloscia, P. Pampaloni, G. Schiavon, S. Sigismondi, and D. Solimini, “The

Potential of Multifrequency Polarimetric SAR in Assessing Agricultural and Arboreous
Biomass,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-35, 1, January 1997,
pp. 5-17.

18
[30] J. S. Lee, M. R. Grunes and Eric Pottier, “Quantitative Comparison of Classification
Capability: Fully Polarimetric Versus Dual and Single-Polarization SAR,” IEEE Transactions
on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-39, 11, November 2001, pp. 2343-2351.

[31] F. Dell’Acqua and P. Gamba, “Texture-Based Characterization of Urban Environments on

Satellite SAR Images,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-41, 1,
January 2003, pp. 153-159.

[32] G. Franceschetti, A Iodice, D. Riccio, A canonical problem in electromagnetic

backscattering from buildings IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-
40, 8, August 2002, pp 1787 -1801

[33] F. Tupin, B. Houshmand, and M. Dactu, “Road Detection in Dense Urban Areas Using SAR
Imagery and the Usefulness of Multiple Views,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote
Sensing, GRS-40, 11, November 2002, pp. 2405-2414.

[34] P. L. Frison and E. Mougin, “Monitoring Seasonal Vegetation Dynamics in the Sahel with
Ers Wind Scatterometer Data, ESA SP-414,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote
Sensing, GRS-35, 1997, pp. 163 –168.

[35] C. Schmullius, “Monitoring Siberian Forests and Agriculture with the ERS-1
Windscatterometer,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-35, 5,
September 1997, pp. 1363-1366.

[36] C. M. U. Neale, M. J. McFarland, and K. Chang, “Land-Surface-Type Classification Using

Microwave Brightness Temperatures from the Special Sensor Microwave/Imager,” IEEE
Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-28, 5, September 1990, pp. 829-838.

[37] J. V. Fiore and N. C. Grody, “Classification of Snow Cover and Precipitation Using SSM/I
Measurements: Case Studies,” International Journal of Remote Sensing, 13, 1992, pp. 3349-
3361.

[38] J. Judge, J. F. Galantowicz, A. W. England, and P. Dahl, “Freeze/Thaw Classification for

Prairie Soils Using SSM/I Radiobrightnesses,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote
Sensing, GRS-35, 4, July 1997, pp. 827-832.

[39] N. C. Grody and Alan N. Basist, “Interpretation of SSM/I Measurements over Greenland,”
IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-35, 2, March 1997, pp. 360-366.

[40] P.-L. Frison, E. Mougin, L. Jarlan, M. A. Karam, and P. Hiernaux, “Comparison of ERS
Wind-Scatterometer and SSM/I Data for Sahelian Vegetation Monitoring,” IEEE Transactions
on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-38, 4, July 2000, pp. 1794-1803.

[41] G. Macelloni, S. Paloscia, P. Pampaloni, and E. Santi, “Global Scale Monitoring of Soil and
Vegetation Using Active and Passive Sensors,” International Journal Remote Sensing, 2003,
pp. 2409-2425.

[42] Y. Oh, K. Sarabandi, and F. T. Ulaby, ”An Empirical Model and an Inversion Technique for
Radar Scattering from Bare Soil Surfaces,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote
Sensing, GRS-30, 2, March 1992, pp. 370-381.

19
[43] M. C. Dobson, F. T. Ulaby, M. T. Hallikainen, and M. A. El-Rayes," Microwave Dielectric
Behavior of Wet Soil - Part II – Dielectric Mixing Models, " IEEE Transactions on Geoscience
and Remote Sensing, GRS-23, 1, January 1985, pp. 35-46.

[44] N. R. Peplinski, F. T. Ulaby, and M. C. Dobson, 1995, “Dielectric Properties of Soil in the
0.3 - 1.3 GHz Range,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-33, 3,
May 1995, pp. 803-806.

[45] K. Sarabandi and E. S. Li, “A Microstrip Ring Resonator for Non-Invasive Dielectric
Measurements,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-35, 5,
September 1997, pp. 1223-1231.

[46] G. Du, F. T. Ulaby, and M. C. Dobson,”Sensitivity to Soil Moisture by Active and Passive
Microwave Sensors,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-38, 1,
January 2000, pp. 105-114.

[47] Y. H. Kerr, Ph. Waldteufel, J.-P. Wigneron, J.-M. Martinuzzi, J. Font, and M. Berger, “Soil
Moisture Retrieval from Space: The Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity (SMOS) Mission,” IEEE
Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-39, 8, August 2001, pp. 1729-1735.

[48] D. Le Vine, C. Koblinsky, and F. Pellerano, “The Measurement of Salinity from Space:
Sensor Concept,” IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, Sidney,
Australia, 9-13 July 2001.

[49] T. J. Jackson, D. M. Le Vine, A. Y. Hsu, A. Oldak, P. J. Starks, C. T. Swift, J. D. Isham, and

M. Haken, “Soil Moisture Mapping at Regional Scales Using Microwave Radiometry: The
Southern Great Plains Hydrology Experiment,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote
Sensing, GRS-37, 5, September 1999, pp. 2136-2452.

[50] R. Bindlish, W. P. Kustas, A. N. French, G. R. Diak, and J. R. Mecikalski, “Influence of

Near-Surface Soil Moisture on Regional Scale Heat Fluxes: Model Results Using Microwave
Remote Sensing Data from SGP97,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing,
GRS-39, 8, August 2001, pp. 1719-1728.

[51] E. G. Njoku, W. J.Wilson, S. H. Yueh, St. J. Dinardo, F. K. Li, T. J. Jackson, V. Lakshmi,

and J. Bolten, “Observations of Soil Moisture Using a Passive and Active Low-Frequence
Microwave Airborne Sensor During SGP99,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote
Sensing, GRS-40, 12, December 2002, pp. 2659-2673.

[52] T. J. Jackson, A.. J. Gasiewski, A. Oldak, M. Klein, E. G. Njoku, A. Yevgrafov, S.

Christiani, and R. Bindlish, “Soil Moisture Retrieval Using the C-Band Polarimetric Scanning
Radiometer During the Southern Great Plains 1999 Experiment,” IEEE Transactions on
Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-40, 10, October 2002, pp. 2151-2161.

[53] W. T. Crow, M. Drusch, and E. F. Wood, “An Observation System Simulation Experiment
for the Impact of Land Surface Heterogeneity on AMSR-E Soil Moisture Retrieval,” IEEE
Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-39, 8, August 2001, pp. 1622-1631.

[54] A. Van de Griend, “The Effective Thermodynamic Temperature of the Emitting Surface at
6.6 GHz and Consequences for Soil Moisture Monitoring from Space,” IEEE Transactions on
Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-39, 8, August 2001, pp. 1673-1679.

20
[55] E. G. Njoku, T. J. Jackson, V. Lakshmi, T. K. Chan, and S.V. Nghiem, “Soil Moisture
Retrieval from AMSR-E,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-41, 2,
February 2003, pp. 215-229.

[56] E. G. Njoku and Li Li, “Retrieval of Land Surface Parameters Using Passive Microwave
Measurements at 6–18 GHz,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-37,
1, January 1999, pp. 79-93.

[57] T. J. Jackson, D. M. Le Vine, A. J. Griffis, D. C. Goodrich, T. J. Schmugge, C. T. Swift, and

P. E. O’Neill, “Soil Moisture and Rainfall Estimation Over a Semiarid Environment with the
ESTAR Microwave Radiometer,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing,
GRS-31, 4, July 1993, pp. 836-841.

[58] K. Vinnikov, A. Robock, S. Qiu, J. Entin, M. Owe, B. Choudhury, S. Hollinger, and E.

Njoku, “Satellite Remote Sensing of Soil Moisture in Illinois, USA,” Journal Geophysical
Research, GRS-104, 1999, pp. 4145-4168.

[59] S. Paloscia, G. Macelloni, E. Santi, and T. Koike, “A Multifrequency Algorithm for the
Retrieval of Soil Moisture on a Large Scale Using Microwave Data from SMMR and SSM/I
Satellites,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-39, 8, August 2001,
pp. 1655-1661.

[60] M. Owe, R. de Jeu, and J. Walker, “A Methodology for Surface Soil Moisture
andVegetation Optical Depth Retrieval Using theMicrowave Polarization Difference Index,”
IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-39, 8, August 2001, pp. 1643-
1654.

[61] T. J. Jackson and A. Y. Hsu, “Soil Moisture and TRMM Microwave Imager Relationships
in the Southern Great Plains 1999 (SGP99) Experiment,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience
and Remote Sensing, GRS-39, 8, August 2001, pp. 1632-1642.

[62] D. T. Davis, Z. Chen, J.-N. Hwang, L. Tsang, and E. G. Njoku, “Solving Inverse Problems
by Bayesian Iterative Inversion of a Forward Model with Applications to Parameter Mapping
Using SMMR Remote Sensing Data,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing,
GRS-33, 5, September 1995, pp. 1182–1193.

[63] Y. Liou, S. Liu, and W. Wang, “Retrieving Soil Moisture from Simulated Brightness
Temperatures by a Neural Network,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing,
GRS-39, 8, August 2001, pp. 1662–1672.

[64] S. Liu, Y. Liou, W. Wang, J.-P. Wigneron, and J.-B. Lee, “Retrieval of Crop Biomass and
Soil Moisture From Measured 1.4 and 10.65 GHz Brightness Temperatures,” IEEE
Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-40, 6, June 2002, pp. 1260-1268.

[65] J. F. Galantowicz, D. Entekhabi, and E. G. Njoku, “ Estimation of Soil-Type Heterogenity

Effects in the Retrieval of Soil Moisture from Radiobrightness,” IEEE Transactions on
Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-38, 1, January 2000, pp. 312-315.

[66] Y. A. Liou, J. Kim, and A. W. England, “Radiobrightness of Prairie Soil and Grassland
During Dry-Down Simulations,” Radio Science, 33, 1998, pp. 259–265.

21
[67] M. Drusch, E. F. Wood, and C. Simmer, “Up-scaling Effects in Passive Microwave Remote
Sensing: ESTAR 1.4GHz Measurements during SGP ’97,” Geophysical Research Letters, 26,
2001, pp. 879–882.

[68] W. T. Crow, M. Drusch, and E. F. Wood, “An Observation System Simulation Experiment
for the Impact of Land Surface Heterogeneity on AMSR-E Soil Moisture,” IEEE Transactions
on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-39, 2001, pp. 1622–1631.

[69] A. Guha and V. Lakshmi, “Sensitivity, Spatial Heterogeneity, and Scaling of C-Band
Microwave Brightness Temperatures for Land Hydrology Studies,” IEEE Transactions on
Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-40, 12, December 2002, pp. 2626-2635.

[70] E. J. Burke and L. P. Simmonds, “Effects of Sub-Pixel Heterogeneity on the Retrieval of

Soil Moisture from Passive Microwave Radiometry,” International Journal of Remote Sensing,
24, 10, May 2003, pp. 2085–2104.

[71] E. J. Burke, R. J. Gurney, L. P. Simmonds, and T. J. Jackson, “Calibrating a Soil Water and
Energy budget Model with Remotely Sensed Data to Obtain Quantitative Information about the
Soil,” Water Resources Research, 33, 1997, pp. 1689–1697.

[72] J. F. Galantowicz, D. Entekhabi, and E. G. Njoku, “Tests of Sequential Data Assimilation

for Retrieving Profile Soil Moisture and Temperature from Observed L-Band Radiobrightness,”
IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-37, 4, July 1999, pp. 1860-1870.

[73] P. R. Houser, W. J. Shuttleworth, J. S. Famiglietti, H. V. Gupta, K. H. Syed, and D. C.

Goodrich, “Integration of soil moisture remote sensing and hydrological modeling using data
assimilation,” Water Resources Res., vol. 34, 1998, pp. 3405–3420

[74] E. J. Burke, W. J. Shuttleworth, K. Lee, and L. A. Bastidas, “Using Area-Average Remotely

Sensed Surface Soil Moisture in Multipatch Land Data Assimilation Systems,” IEEE
Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-39, 10, October 2001, pp. 2091-2100.

[75] R. H. Reichle, D. B. McLaughlin, and D. Entekhabi, “Variational Data Assimilation of

Microwave Radiobrightness Observations for Land Surface Hydrology Applications,” IEEE
Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-39, 8, August 2001, pp. 1708-1718.

[76] L. Tsang, J. A. Kong, and K.-H. Ding, Scattering of Electromagnetic Waves, vol. I: Theories
and Applications, John Wiley &Sons, New York, 2000.

[77] L. Tsang, J. A. Kong, K.-H. Ding, and C. O. Ao, Scattering of Electromagnetic Waves, vol.
II: Numerical Simulations, John Wiley &Sons, New York, 2001.

[78] L. Tsang and J. A. Kong, Scattering of Electromagnetic Waves, vol. III: Advanced Topics,
John Wiley &Sons, New York, 2001.

[79] G. Macelloni, G. Nesti, P. Pampaloni, S. Sigismondi, D. Tarchi, and S. Lolli, “Experimental

Validation of Surface Scattering and Emission Models,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and
Remote Sensing, GRS-38, 1, January 2000, pp. 459-469.

[80] Q. Li, L. Tsang, J. Shi, and C. H. Chan, “Application of Physics-Based Two-Grid Method
and Sparse Matrix Canonical Grid Method for Numerical Simulations of Emissivities of Soils

22
 With Rough Surfaces at Microwave Frequencies,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and
Remote Sensing, GRS-38, 4, July 2000, pp. 1635-1643.

[81] K. Sarabandi, Y. Oh, and F. T. Ulaby, “Measurement and Calibration of Differential

Mueller Matrix of Distributed Targets,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, 40,
12, December 1992, pp. 1524-1532.

[82] Y. Oh, K. Sarabandi, and F. T. Ulaby, “An Empirical Model and an Inversion Technique for
Radar Scattering from Bare Soil Surfaces,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote
Sensing, GRS-30, 2, March 1992, pp. 370-381.

[83] P. C. Dubois, J. van Zyl, and T. Engman, “Measuring Soil Moisture with Imaging Radars,”
IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-33, 4, July 1995, pp. 915-926.

[84] Y. Kim and J.J. van Zyl, “On the Relationship Between Polarimetric Parameters and Soil
Moisture,” Proc. IEEE 2002 International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium
(IGARSS 2002), Toronto, June 2002.

[85] A. J. Wickel and T. J. Jackson, “Multitemporal Monitoring of Soil Moisture with

RADARSAT SAR during the 1997 Southern Great Plains hydrology experiment,”
International Journal of Remote Sensing, 22, 8, 2001, pp. 1571-1583.

[86] http://hydrolab.arsusda.gov/sgp97/gsm.html

[87] G. Macelloni, S.Paloscia, P. Pampaloni, S. Sigismondi, P. De Matthaeis, P. Ferrazzoli, G.

Schiavon and D. Solimini. @ The SIR-C/X-SAR experiment on Montespertoli supersite: the
sensitivity to hydrological parameters@. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 13, 1999, pp
2597-2612.

[88] R. Bindlish and A. P. Barros, “Multifrequency Soil Moisture Inversion from SAR
Measurements with the Use of IEM,” Remote Sensing of Environment, 71, 1, January 2000, pp.
67-88.

[89] G. Satalino, F. Mattia, M. W. J. Davidson, T. Le Toan, G. Pasquariello, and M. Borgeaud,

“On Current Limits of Soil Moisture Retrieval from ERS-SAR Data,” IEEE Transactions on
Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-40, 11, November 2002, pp. 2438-2447.

[90] L. Jarlan, P. Mazzega, and E. Mougin, “Retrieval of Land Surface Parameters in the Sahel
From ERS Wind Scatterometer Data: A “Brute Force” Method,” IEEE Transactions on
Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-40, 9, September 2002, pp. 2056-2062.

[91] H. Bach and W. Mauser, “Methods and Examples for Remote Sensing Data Assimilation in
Land Surface Process Modeling,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing,
GRS-41, 7, July 2003, pp. 1629-1637

[92] I. H. Woodhouse and D. H. Hoekman, “Determining Land-Surface Parameters from the

ERS Wind Scatterometer,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-38, 1,
January 2000, pp. 126-140.

23
[93] W. Wagner and K. Scipal, “Large-Scale Soil Moisture Mapping in Western Africa Using the
ERS Scatterometer,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-38, 4, July
2000, pp. 1777-1782.

[94] T. C. Chiu and K. Sarabandi, “Electromagnetic Scattering from Short Branching

Vegetation,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-38, 2, March 2000,
pp. 911-925.

[95] P. Siqueira, K. Sarabandi, and F. T. Ulaby, “Numerical Simulation of Scatterer Positions in

a Very Dense Medium with an Application to the Two-dimensional Born Approximation,”
Radio Science, 30, 5, 1995, pp. 1325-1339.

[96] R. West, L.Tsang, and D. P. Winebrenner “Dense Medium Radiative Transfer Theory for
Two Scattering Layers with a Rayleigh Distribution of Particle Sizes,” IEEE Transactions on
Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-31, 2, March 1993, pp. 426-437.

[97] L. Tsang, L. and J. A. Kong, “Scattering of Electromagnetic Waves from a Dense Medium
Consisting of Correlated Mie Scatterers with Size Distributions and Applications to Dry Snow,”
Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications, 6, 3, 1992, pp. 265-296.

[98] A. N. Arslan, H. Wang, J. Pulliainen, and M. Hallikainen, “Effective Permittivity of Wet

Sow Using Strong Fluctiuation Theory,” Progress In Electromagnetic Research, PIER 31,
2001, pp. 273–290.

[99] G. Macelloni, S. Paloscia, P. Pampaloni, and M. Tedesco, “Microwave Emission from Dry
Snow: A Comparison of Experimental and Model Result,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience
and Remote Sensing, GRS-39, 12, December 2001, pp. 2649-2656.

[100] K. Sarabandi and P. Siqueira, “Numerical Scattering Analysis for Two Dimensional Dense
Random Media: Characterization of Effective Permittivity,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas
and Propagation, 45, 5, May 1997.

[101] P. Siqueira and K. Sarabandi, “T-Matrix Determination of Effective Permittivity for Three-
dimensional Dense Random Media,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, 48, 2,
February 2000, pp. 317-327.

[102] A. Nashashibi A. and K. Sarabandi, “Experimental Characterization of the Effective

Propagation Constant of Dense Random Media,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and
Propagation, 47, 9, September 1999, pp. 1454-1462.

[103] F. T. Ulaby, P. R. Siqueira, A. Nashashibi, and K. Sarabandi, “Semi-Empirical Model for

Radar Backscatter from Snow at 35 and 95 GHz,” IEEE IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and
Remote Sensing, GRS-34, 5, September 1996, pp. 1059-1065.

[104] F. T. Ulaby, R. K. Moore and A. K. Fung, Microwave Remote Sensing: Active and Passive,
Vol. III: Surface Scattering and Emission Theory, Artech House, Dedham, MA, 1986.

[105] J. R. Kendra and K. Sarabandi, “A Hybrid Experimental/Theoretical Scattering Model for

Dense Random Media,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-37, 1,
January 1999, pp. 21-35.

24
[106] E. Schanda, C. Mätzler and K. Künzi, "Microwave Remote Sensing of Snow Cover,"
International Journal of Remote Sensing, 4, 1983, pp. 149-158.

[107] H. Rott, K. Strum, and H. Miller. "Active and Passive Microwave Signatures of Antarctic
Firn by Means of Field Measurements and Satellite Data." Annals of Glaciology, 17, 1993, pp
337-342.

[108] P. Pampaloni, G. Macelloni, S.Paloscia, M.Tedesco, R. Ranzi, M. Tomirotti, A.Cagnati,

A.Crepaz, “The Microwave Alpine Snow Melting Experiment (MASMEx 2002): A
contribution to the ENVISNOW project,” Proc. IEEE 2003 International Geoscience and
Remote Sensing Symposium IGARSS 2003, Toulouse, France, 2003.

[109] L. Armstrong and M. J. Brodzik, “Recent Northern Hemisphere Snow Extent: a Comparison
of Data Derived from Visible and Microwave Satellite Sensors,” Geophysical Research Letters,
28, 2001, pp. 3673-3676.

[110] J. Pulliainen and M. Hallikainen, “Retrieval of Regional Snow Water Equivalent from
Space/borne Passive Microwave observations,” Remote Sensing of Environment, 75, 2001, pp.
76-85.

[111] S. Rosenfeld and N. C. Grody, “Metamorphic Signature of Snow Revealed in SSM/I

Measurements,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-38, 1, January
2000, pp. 53-63.

[112] D. T. Davis, Z. Chen, L. Tsang, J. N. Hwang, and A. T. C. Chang, “Retrieval of Snow

Parameters by Iterative Inversion of a Neural Network,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and
Remote Sensing, GRS-31, 4, July 1993, pp. 842-851.

[113] M. Hallikainen, P. Jolma, “Comparison of Algorithms for Retrieval of Snow Water

Equivalent from Nimbus-7 SMMR Data in Finland, ” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and
Remote Sensing, GRS-30, 1, January 1992, pp. 124-131.

[114] P. R. Singh and T. Y. Gan, “Retrieval of Snow Water Equivalent Using Passive Microwave
Brightness Temperature Data,” Remote Sensing of Environment, 74, 2, November 2000, pp.
275-286.

[115] J. T. Pulliainen, J. Grandell, and M. Hallikainen, “HUT Snow Emission Model and its
Applicability to Snow Water Equivalent Retrieval,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and
Remote Sensing, GRS-37, 3, May 1999, pp. 1378-1390.

[116] J. L. Foster, A. T. C. Chang, and D. K. Hall, “Comparison of Snow Mass Estimates from a
Prototype Passive Microwave Snow Algorithm, a Revised Algorithm and Snow Depth
Climatology,” Remote Sensing of Environment, 1997, 62, pp. 132–142.

[117] R. E. Kelly, A. T. Chang, L. Tsang and J. L. Foster, “A Prototype AMSR-E Global Snow
Area and Snow Depth Algorithm,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing,
GRS-41, 2, February 2003, pp. 230-242.

[118] J. Guo, L. Tsang, E. G. Josberger, A. W. Wood, J. N. Hwang, and D. P. Lettenmaier,

“Mapping the Spatial Distribution and Time Evolution of Snow Water Equivalent With Passive
Microwave Measurements,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-41,
3, March 2003, pp. 612-621.
25
[119] L. L. Wilson, L. Tsang, J.-N. Hwang, and C.-T. Chen, “Mapping Snow Water Equivalent by
Combining a Spatially Distributed Snow Hydrology Model with Passive Microwave Remote-
Sensing Data,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-37, 2, March
1999, pp. 690-704.

[120] C.T. Chen, B. Nijssen, J. Guo, L. Tsang, A. W. Wood, J.-N. Hwang, and D. P. Lettenmaier,
“Passive Microwave Remote Sensing of Snow Constrained by Hydrological Simulations,”
IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-39, 8, August 2001, pp. 1744-
1756.

[121] W. H. Stiles and F. T. Ulaby, “The Active and Passive Microwave Response to Snow
Parameters 1. & 2. Wetness,” Journal Geophysical Research, 85, C2, 1980.

[122] C. Maetzler, E. Schanda, and W. Good, “Towards the Definition of Optimum Sensor
Specifications for Microwave Remote Sensing of Snow,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience
and Remote Sensing, 20, 1, January 1982, pp. 57-66.

[123] A. T. C. Chang, J. L. Foster, M. Owe, and D. K. Hall, “Passive and Active Microwave
Studies of Wet Snowpack Properties,” Nordic Hydrology, 16, 1985, pp. 57-66.

[124] J. R. Kendra, K. Sarabandi, and F. T. Ulaby, “Radar Measurements of Snow: Experiment

and Analysis,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-36, 3, May 1998,
pp. 864-879.

[125] M. Hallikainen, F. T. Ulaby, and M. Abdelrazik, “Dielectric Properties of Snow in the 3 to

37 GHz Range,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, 34, 1986, pp. 1329-1339.

[126] M. E. Tiuri, A. H. Sihvola, E. G. Nyfors, and M. T. Hallikainen, ”The Complex Dielectric

Constant of Snow at Microwave Frequencies,” IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, 9, 1984,
pp. 377-382.

[127] J. R. Kendra, F. T. Ulaby, and K. Sarabandi, “Snow Probe for in situ Determination of
Wetness and Density,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-32, 6,
Novembre 1994, pp. 1152-1159.

[128] T. H. Nagler, H. Rott, and G. Glendinning, ”Snowmelt Runoff Modelling by Means of

Radarsat and ERS SAR,” Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing, 26, 6, 2000, pp. 512-520.

[129] T. Nagler and H. Rott, “Retrieval of Wet Snow by Means of Multitemporal SAR Data,”
IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-38, 2, March 2000, pp. 754-765.

[130] M. Bernier, J-P. Fortin, Y. Gauthier, R. Gauthier, R. Roy, and P. Vincent, “Determination of
Snow Water Equivalent Using Radarsat SAR data in Eastern Canada,” Hydrological Processes,
13, 18, 1999, pp. 3041-3051.

[131] F. Papa, B. Legresy, N. M. Mognard, E. G. Josberger, and F. Remy, “Estimating Terrestrial

Snow Depth With the Topex–Poseidon Altimeter and Radiometer,” IEEE Transactions on
Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-40, 10, October 2002, pp. 2162-2169.

26
[132] D. Floricioiu and H. Rott, “Seasonal and short-term variability of multifrequency,
polarimetric radar backscatter of Alpine terrain from SIR-C/X-SAR and AIRSAR data,” IEEE
Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-39, 12 , Dec. 2001, pp. 2634-2648.

[133] J. Shi and J. Dozier, “Estimation of Snow Water Equivalence Using SIR-C/X-SAR, Part I:
Inferring Snow Density and Subsurface,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote
Sensing, GRS-38, 6, November 2000, pp. 2465-2474.

[134] J. Shi and J. Dozier, “Estimation of Snow Water Equivalence Using SIR-C/X-SAR, Part II:
Inferring Snow Depth and Particle Size,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote
Sensing, GRS-38, 6, November 2000, pp. 2475-2488.

[135] T. Guneriussen, K. A. Høgda, H. Johnsen, and I. Lauknes, “ InSAR for Estimation of

Changes in Snow Water Equivalent of Dry Snow,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and
Remote Sensing, GRS-39, 10, Oktober 2001, pp. 2101-2108.

[136] R. Goldstein, R. Engelhard, B. Kamb, and R. Frolich, “Satellite radar interferometry for
monitoring ice sheet motion: Application to an Antarctic ice stream,” Science, vol. 262, Dec.
1993, pp. 1525–1530.

[137] J. J. Mohr, N. Reeh, and S. Madsen, “Three-dimensional glacial flow and surface elevation
measured with radar interferometry,” Nature, vol. 391, Jan. 1998, pp. 273–276.

[138] T. Strozzi, A. Luckman, T. Murray, U. Wegmüller and C. L. Werner, “Glacier Motion

Estimation Using Sar Offset-Tracking Procedures,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and
Remote Sensing, GRS-40, 11, November 2002.

[139] J.-P. Kärnä, J. Pulliainen, M. Huttunen and J. Koskinen, “Assimilation of SAR data to
operational hydrological runoff and snow melt forecasting model,” Proc. IEEE 2002
International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS 2002), Toronto, Canada,
2002.

[140] S. V. Nghiem and W.-Y. Tsai, “Global Snow Cover Monitoring With Spaceborne Ku-band
Scatterometer,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-39, 10, October
2001, pp. 2118-2134.

[141] P. Ferrazzoli and L. Guerriero, “Passive Microwave Remote Snsing of Forests: A Model
Investigation,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-34, 2, March
1996, pp. 433-443.

[142] M.A. Karam, “A Physical Model for Microwave Radiometry of Vegetation,” IEEE
Transaction on Geoscience and Remote Sensing GRS-35. 4, 1997, pp. 1045-1058.

[143] M. T. Hallikainen, P. A. Jolma, and J. M. Hyyppa, “Satellite Microwave Radiometry of

Forest and Surface Types in Finland,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing,
GRS-26, 5, September 1988, pp. 622-628.

[144] L. Kurvonen, J. Pulliainen, and M. Hallikainen, “Monitoring of Boreal Forests with

Multitemporal Special Sensor Microwave Imager,” Radio Science, 1998, 33, pp. 731-744.

27
[145] N. Kruopis, J. Praks, A. N. Arslan, H. M. Alasalmi, J. Koskinen, and M. T. Hallikainen,
“Passive Microwave Measurements of Snow-Covered Forest Areas in EMAC’95,” IEEE
Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-37, 6, November 1999, pp. 2699-2705.

[146] R. H. Lang, P. de Matthaeis, D. M. Le Vine, S. Bidwell, M. Haken, and N. Chauhan, “L-

Band Radiometer Measurements of Conifer Forests,” Proc. IEEE 2000 International
Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS 2000), Honolulu, Hawaii, July 2000, pp.
1930-1932.

[147] G. Macelloni, S. Paloscia, P. Pampaloni, and R. Ruisi, “Airborne Multi-Frequency L- to

Ka - Band Radiometric Measurements over Forests,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and
Remote Sensing, GRS-39, 11, November 2001, pp. 2507-2513.

[148] P. Ferrazzoli, L. Guerriero, J. P. Wigneron, “Simulating L-band Emission of Forests in

View of Future Satellite Applications,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing,
GRS-40, 12, December 2002, pp. 2700-2708.

[149] S. J. Durden, J. J. van Zyle, and H. A. Zebker, ``Modeling and Observation of the Radar
Polarization Signature of Forested Areas,'' IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote
Sensing, GRS-27, 3, May 1989, pp. 290-301.

[150] M. C. Dobson, F. T. Ulaby, T. Le Toan, A. Beaudoin, and E. S. Kasischke, ”Dependence of

Radar Backscatter on Conifer Forest Biomass,'' IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote
Sensing, GRS-30, 2, March 1992, pp. 402-415.

[151] M. L. Imhoff, “A Theoretical Analysis of the Effect of Forest Structure on SAR Backscatter
and the Remote Sensing of Biomass'', IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing,
GRS-33, 2, 1995, pp. 341-352.

[152] M. C. Dobson, F. T. Ulaby, L. E. Pirece, T. L. Sharik, K. M. Bergen, J. Kellndorfer, J. R.

Kendra, E. Li, Y. C. Lin, A. Nashashibi, K. Sarabandi, and P. Siqueira, “Estimation of Forest
Biomass,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-33, 4, July 1995, pp.
887-895.

[153] S. S. Saatchi and M. Moghaddam, “Estimation of Crown and Stem Water Content and
Biomass of Boreal Forest Using Polarimetric SAR Imagery”, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience
and Remote Sensing, GRS-38, 2000, pp. 697–708.

[154] S. Quegan, T. Le Toan, J. J. Yu, F. Ribbes, and N. Floury, “Multitemporal ERS SAR
Analysis Applied to Forest Mapping,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing,
GRS-38, 2, March 2000, pp. 741-753.

[155] J. T. Pulliainen, L. Kurvonen, and M. T. Hallikainen, “Multitemporal Behavior of L- and C-

Band SAR Observations of Boreal Forests,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote
Sensing, GRS-37, 2, March 1999, pp. 927-.937.

[156] H. J. Hyyppä and J. M. Hyyppä, “Effects of Stand Size on the Accuracy of Remote Sensing-
Based Forest Inventory,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-39, 12,
December 2001, pp. 2613-2621.

[157] T. Le Toan, A. Beaudoin, J. Riom, and D. Guyon, “Relating Forest Biomass to SAR Data,”
IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-30, March 1992, pp. 403–411.
28
[158] M. C. Dobson, F. T. Ulaby, T. Le Toan, A. Beaudoin, E. Kasischke, and N. L. Christensen,
“Dependence of radar backscatter on coniferous biomass,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience
and Remote Sensing, GRS-30, 2, March 1992, pp. 412–415.

[159] A. Beaudoin, T. Le Toan, S. Goze, E. Nezry, A. Lopes, E. Mougin, C. C. Hsu, H. C. Han, J.

A. Kong, and R. T. Shin, “Retrieval of Forest Biomass from SAR Data,” International Journal
of Remote Sensing, 15, March 1994, pp. 2777–2796.

[160] P. Melon, J. M. Martinez, T. Le Toan, L. M. H. Ulander, and A. Beaudoin, “On the

Retrieving of Forest Stem Volume From VHF SAR Data: Observation and Modeling,” IEEE
Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-39, 11, November 2001, pp. 2364-
2372.

[161] A. T. Manninen and L. M. H. Ulander, “Forestry Parameter Retrieval From Texture in

CARABAS VHF-Band SAR Images,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing,
GRS-39, 12, December 2001, pp. 2622-2633.

[162] J. E. S. Fransson, F. Walter, K. Blennow, A. Gustavsson, and L. M. H. Ulander, “Detection

of Storm-Damaged Forested Areas Using Airborne CARABAS-II VHF SAR Image Data,”
IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-40, 10, October 2002, 2170-
2175.

[163] F. T. Ulaby and M. A. El-Rayes, “Microwave Dielectric Spectrum of Vegetation, part II:
Dual-Dispersion Model,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-25, 5,
September 1987, pp. 550-557.

[164] K. Sarabandi, “A Technique for Dielectric Measurement of Cylindrical Objects in a

Rectangular Waveguide,” IEEE Transaction on Instrumentation Measurements, 43, 6,
December 1994, pp. 793-798.

[165] A. Franchois, Y. Piñeiro and R.H. Lang Microwave Permittivity Measurements of Two
Conifers IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing GRS- 36, 5, 1998, 1384-1394

[166] F. T. Ulaby, K. Sarabandi, K. MacDonald, M. Whitt, and M. C. Dobson, ”Michigan

Microwave Canopy Scattering Model,'' International Journal of Remote Sensing, 11, 7, 1990,
pp. 1223-1253.

[167] M.A. Karam and A. K. Fung, ”Electromagnetic Scattering from a Layer of Finite Length,
Randomly Oriented, Dielectric Circular Cylinders over a Rough Interface with Application to
Vegetation,'' International Journal of Remote Sensing, 9, 1988, pp. 1109-1134.

[168] R. H. Lang and J. S. Sidhu, ”Electromagnetic Backscattering from a Layer of Vegetation: a

Discrete Approach,'' IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-21, 1,
January 1983, pp. 62-71.

[169] Y. C. Lin and K. Sarabandi, “A Monte Carlo Coherent Scattering Model For Forest
Canopies Using Fractal-Generated Trees,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote
Sensing, GRS-37, 1, January 1999, pp. 440-451.

[170] R. Schiffer and K. O. Thielheim, “Light Scattering by Dielectric Needles and Disks,'”
Journal of Applied Physics, 50, 4, April 1979.
29
[171] K. Sarabandi and T. B. A. Senior, “Low-frequency Scattering from Cylindrical Structures at
Oblique Incidence,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-28, 5,
September 1990, pp. 879-885.

[172] S. S. Seker and A. Schneider, “Electromagnetic Scattering from a Dielectric Cylinder of

Finite Length,” IEEE Transactions on. Antennas and Propagation, 36, 2, February 1988, pp.
303-307.

[173] K. Sarabandi, T. B. A. Senior, and F. T. Ulaby, “Effect of Curvature on the Backscattering

from a Leaf”, Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications, 2, 1988, pp. 653-670.

[174] T. B. A. Senior, K. Sarabandi, and F.T. Ulaby, “Measuring and Modeling the Backscattering
Cross Section of a Leaf”, Radio Science, 22, 1987, pp. 1109-1116.

[175] Y. C. Lin, and K. Sarabandi, “Electromagnetic Scattering Model for a Tree Trunk above a
Ground Plane,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-33, 4, July 1995,
pp. 1063-1070.

[176] E. Rodriguez and J. M. Martin, “Theory and Design of Interferometric Synthetic Aperture
Radars,'' Proceedings of the IEEE. F139, 2, 1992, pp. 147-159.

[177] J. O. Hagberg, L. M. H. Ulander, and J. Askne, “Repeat-pass SAR Interferometry over

forested terrain,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-33, 2, March
1995, pp. 331-340.

[178] U. Wegmueller and C. L. Werner, “SAR Interferometry Signature of Forest,” IEEE

Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-33, 5, September 1995, pp. 1153-1161.

[179] T. Strozzi, P. B. G. Dammert, U. Wegmüller, J.-M. Martinez, J. I. H. Askne, A. Beaudoin,

and M. T. Hallikainen, “Landuse Mapping with ERS SAR Interferometry,” IEEE Transactions
on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-38, 2, March 2000, pp. 766 –775.

[180] N. P. Faller and E. H. Meier, “First Results with the Airborne Single-Pass DO-SAR
Interferometer,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-33, 5, September
1995, pp. 1230-1237.

[181] K. Sarabandi, “∆K-Radar equivalent of interferometric SARs: a theoretical study for

determination of vegetation height,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing,
GRS-35, 5, September 1997, pp. 1267-1276.

[182] R. N. Treuhaft, S. N. Madsen, M. Moghaddam, and J. J. van Zyl, “Vegetation

Characteristics and Underlying Topography from Interferometric Radar,” Radio Science, 31, 6,
1996, pp. 1449-1485.

[183] K. Sarabandi and Y. C. Lin, “Simulation of Interferometric SAR Response for

Characterization of Scattering Phase Center Statistics of Forest Canopies,” IEEE Transactions
on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-38, 1, January 2000, pp. 115-125.

[184] H. A. Zebker, S. N. Madsen, J. Martin, K. B. Wheeler, T. Miller, Y. Lou, G. Alberti, S.

Vetrella, and A. Cucci, “ The TOPSAR Interferometric Radar Topographic Mapping

30
 Instrument,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-30, 5, September
1992, pp. 933-940.

[185] S. R. Cloude and K.P. Pathanassiou, “Polarimetric SAR interferometry”, IEEE Transactions
on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-34, 2, March 1996, pp. 498-518.

[186] R. Cloude, K. P. Papathanassiou, I. Woodhouse, J. Hope, J. C. Suarez Minguez, P. Osborne,

and G. Wright, ”The Glen-Affric Project: Forest Mapping using Polarimetric Radar
Interferometry", Proc. IEEE 2001 International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium
(IGARSS 2001), Sydney, Australia, 9-13, July, 2001.

[187] R. Treuhaft, M. Moghaddam, J. van Zyl, and K. Sarabandi, “Estimating Vegetation and
Surface Topographic Parameters from Multibaseline Radar Interferometry,” Proc. IEEE 1996
International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS 1996), Lincoln, Nebraska,
May 1996.

[188] A. Reigber and A. Moreira, “First Demonstration of Airborne SAR Tomography Using
Multibaseline L-Band Data”, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-38,
5, September 2000, pp. 2142-2152.

[189] V. Dimri, Deconvolution and Inverse Theory: application to geophysical problems,

Elsevier, 1992.

[190] M. K. Sen, Global Optimization Methods in Geophysical Inversion, Elsevier, 1995.

[191] E. P. W. Attema and F. T. Ulaby, “Vegetation Modeled as a Water Cloud,” Radio Science,
13, 1978, pp. 357-364.

[192] S. Quegan, T. Le Toan, J. J. Yu, F. Ribbes and N. Floury "Multitemporal ERS SAR
Analysis Applied to Forest Mapping," IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing,
GRS-38, 2, March 2000, pp. 741-753.

[193] L. Pierce, K. Sarabandi, and F. Ulaby, “Application of an Artificial Neural Network in

Canopy scattering inversion,” International Journal of Remote Sensing, vol.15, pp.3263--3270,
1994.

[194] Y. C. Lin and K. Sarabandi, “Retrieval of Forest Parameters Using a Fractal-based Coherent
Scattering Model and a Genetic Algorithm,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote
Sensing, GRS-37, 3, May 1999, pp. 1415-1424.

[195] H. Skriver, M. T. Svendsen, and A. G Thomsen, “Multitemporal C- and L–Band

Polarimetric Signatures of Crops,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing,
GRS-37, 5, September 1999, pp. 2413

[196] P. Saich and M. Borgeaud, “Interpreting ERS SAR Signatures of Agricultural Crops in
Flevoland, 1993–1996,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-38, 2,
2000, pp. 651-657.

[197] G. Macelloni, S. Paloscia, P. Pampaloni, and S. Sigismondi, “The Potential of C-and L-Band
SAR in Estimating Vegetation Biomass: The ERS-1 And JERS-1 Experiments,” IEEE
Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-37, 4, July 1999, pp. 2107-2110G.

31
 [198] Macelloni, S. Paloscia, P. Pampaloni, F. Marliani, and M. Gai, “The Relationship between
the Backscattering Coefficient and the Biomass of Narrow and Broad Laf crops,” IEEE
Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-39, 4, April 2001, pp. 873-884.

[199] S. H. Yueh, J. A. Kong, J. K. Jao, R. T. Shin, and T. L. Toan, “Branching Model for
Vegetation,'' IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-30, 2, March 1992,
pp. 390-402.

[200] J. M. Stiles and K. Sarabandi, “A Scattering Model for Thin Dielectric Cylinders of
Arbitrary Cross-Section and Electrical Length,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and
Propagation, 44, 2, February 1996, pp. 260-266.

[201] J. M. Stiles, K. Sarabandi, and F.T. Ulaby, “Electromagnetic Scattering from Grassland: Part
II, Measurement and Modeling Results,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote
Sensing, GRS-38, 1, January 2000, pp. 349-356.

[202] J. M. Stiles and K. Sarabandi, “Electromagnetic Scattering from Grassland: Part I, A Fully
Coherent Scattering Model,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-38.
1, January 2000, pp. 339-348.

[203] F. Marliani, S. Paloscia, P. Pampaloni and J. A. Kong, “Simulating coherent backscattering

from crops during the growing cycle,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing,
GRS-40, 1, January 2002, pp. 162-177.

[204] Y. Oh, Y. Jang, and K. Sarabandi, “Full-Wave Analysis of Microwave Scattering from
Short Vegetation: An Investigation on the Effect of Multiple Scattering,” IEEE Transactions on
Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-40, 11, Novembre 2002, pp. 2522-2526.

[205] T. C. Chiu and K. Sarabandi, “Electromagnetic Scattering from Short Branching

Vegetation,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GRS-38, 2, March 2000,
pp. 911-925.

[206] M. Guérif and C. Duke, “Calibration of the SUCROS emergence and early growth module
for sugar beet using optical remote sensing data assimilation,” European Journal of Agronomy,
9, 1998, pp. 127-136.

[207] L. Prévot, F. Baret, and A. Chanzy, “Assimilation of Multi-Sensor and Multi-Temporal

Remote Sensing Data to Monitor Vegetation and Soil: the Alpilles-ReSeDA project,” Proc.
International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium IGARSS'98, Seattle (Wa, USA), 6-10
July 1998.

32

View publication stats