Present Status of Soil Moisture Estimation

Cogent Geoscience
ISSN: (Print) 2331-2041 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/oage20
Present status of soil moisture estimation by

microwave remote sensing
Kousik Dashttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-7914-2276 & Prabir Kumar

Paulhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-6222-3408 |
To cite this article: Kousik Dashttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-7914-2276 & Prabir Kumar Paulhttps://

orcid.org/0000-0002-6222-3408 | (2015) Present status of soil moisture estimation by microwave
remote sensing, Cogent Geoscience, 1:1, 1084669, DOI: 10.1080/23312041.2015.1084669
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23312041.2015.1084669
© 2015 The Author(s). This open access

article is distributed under a Creative
Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license
Published online: 08 Oct 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 7750
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 28 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oage20
GEOINFORMATICS | REVIEW ARTICLE

Kousik Das and Prabir Kumar Paul
Cogent Geoscience (2015), 1: 1084669
Page 1 of 21
Das & Paul, Cogent Geoscience (2015), 1: 1084669
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23312041.2015.1084669
GEOINFORMATICS | REVIEW ARTICLE

Kousik Das1* and Prabir Kumar Paul1
Received: 30 April 2015 Abstract: The spatiotemporal distribution of soil moisture is a key variable for hy-
Accepted: 14 August 2015
drological and meteorological applications that influences the exchange of water
Published: 08 October 2015
and energy fluxes at the land surface/atmosphere interface. Accurate estimate of
*Corresponding author: Kousik Das,
Department of Mining Engineering, the spatiotemporal variations of soil moisture is critical for numerous large-scale
Indian Institute of Engineering Science environmental studies. Recent technological advances in satellite remote sensing
and Technology, Shibpur, Howrah, India
E-mail: [email protected] have shown that soil moisture can be measured by a variety of remote sensing tech-
Reviewing editor:
niques, each with its own strengths and weaknesses which minimizes the ill-posed
Zdena Dobesova, Palacky University, conventional problems. Technical and methodological advances such as multi-con-
Czech Republic
figuration radar and forthcoming SAR constellations are increasingly mitigating the
Additional information is available at shortcomings of SAR with respect to soil moisture estimation at the field and catch-
the end of the article
ment scale. This paper presents a comprehensive review of few selected inversion
methods of soil moisture, with focus on technique in passive microwave and active
microwave measurements, in addition to the factors which affect the microwave re-
turn. The theoretical and physical principles and the status of current basic retrieval
methods are summarized. Limitations existing in current soil moisture estimation
algorithms and the major influencing factors including radar configurations (polar-
ization, incidence angel and frequency of bands) and soil surface characteristics on
backscattering coefficient have been addressed and also discussed.
Subjects: GIS; Remote Sensing & Cartography; Remote Sensing; Soil Science
Keywords: soil moisture; radar; SAR; microwave; remote sensing
1. Introduction
Soil moisture is a quantity of water contained in soil on a volumetric or gravimetric basis (Al-Yaari et al.,
2014; Zhao & Li, 2013). Soil moisture participates in the distribution of precipitation between run-off
ABOUT THE AUTHOR PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT

The author has been working for a decade on This review paper is addressed towards the
Remote Sensing and Geographical Information scientific community those are working or try to
System. The major thrust is focused on Remote working on that field of soil moisture retrieval by
Sensing and GIS application on natural resources microwave remote sensing. This review paper is
and mining. To name a few we had been working used to describe the fundamentals of active and
on landslide zoning, location of sites for small passive microwave remote sensing technology
hydel and ground water. Presently we are working there models and algorithms to retrieve soil
on various applications of SAR data specifically on moisture. Basically it depicts limitations existing in
town planning, soil moisture etc. current soil moisture estimation algorithms and
the major influencing factors that affect radar
configurations. New readers will be benefitted from
this paper by the information of very beginning of
this technology of soil moisture estimation to till
date.
© 2015 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution
(CC-BY) 4.0 license.
Page 2 of 21
and infiltration (Petropoulos, Ireland, & Barrett, in press; Seneviratne et al., 2010). Soil moisture influ-
ences meteorological and climatic processes (Álvarez-Mozos, Casalí, González-Audícana, & Verhoest,
2005; Wagner et al., 2007), though surface soil moisture only constitutes 0.0012% of all water available
on Earth (Chow, Maidment, & Mays, 1988). Soil moisture was recognized as an essential climate varia-
ble (ECV) in 2010 because it plays a crucial role in various processes occurring on the soil–atmosphere
interface (European Space Agency [ESA], Soil moisture network, http://www.esa-soilmoisture-cci.org/
node) (Al-Yaari et al., 2014; Zhao & Li, 2013). The representative ground–based measurements of soil
moisture are an unsolved problem because the only soil moisture data available are from point meas-
urements (Laguardia & Niemeyer, 2008). Considering the high variability and the low degree of
observed autocorrelation, it is difficult to obtain reliable estimates at the larger scale from point meas-
urements (Engman & Gurney, 1991; Giacomelli, Bacchiega, Troch, & Mancini, 1995; Kornelsen &
Coulibaly, 2013; Ulaby, Moore, & Fung, 1986). Possibility of retrieving soil moisture has been investi-
gated using satellites, space shuttles and airborne synthetic aperture radars (Baghdadi, Holah, & Zribi,
2006a; Baghdadi, King, Chanzy, & Wigneron, 2002). Microwave remote sensing is the most effective
technique for soil moisture estimation, with advantages for all-weather observations and solid physics
(Engman, 1990; Kornelsen & Coulibaly, 2013; Petropoulos et al., in press). Since microwave measure-
ments of the soil surface are affected by the water content (Engman & Gurney, 1991; Petropoulos et al.,
in press; Seneviratne et al., 2010; Shi et al., 2012; Ulaby et al., 1986), it is easy to see the potentiality of
remote sensing in soil moisture mapping and other related applications (Batlivala & Ulaby, 1977;
Giacomelli et al., 1995; Petropoulos et al., in press; Seneviratne et al., 2010).
The use of radar data to retrieve soil moisture is of considerable importance in many domains,
including agriculture, hydrology and meteorology (Baghdadi, King, Chanzy, et al., 2002; Petropoulos
et al., in press; Seneviratne et al., 2010). Despite many advantages that can be derived from the
knowledge of soil moisture distribution, measurement of soil moisture has few limitations. However,
the measurement of soil moisture is not only depended on target characteristics such as surface
roughness, vegetation cover, dielectric constant and topography (Ualby, Batlivala, & Dobson, 1978)
but also depends on various combinations of the radar sensor parameters including frequency, po-
larization and angle of incidence (θ) with respect to nadir (Anguela, Zribi, Baghdadi, & Loumagne,
2010; Bertoldi et al., 2014; Dobson & Ulaby, 1981, 1986; Kornelsen & Coulibaly, 2013; Ualby et al.,
1978).
2. Microwave remote sensing
2.1. Active microwave remote sensing

Active microwave remote sensing uses the radar antenna in terms of either real or synthetic aper-
ture, which transmits wave pulses of known energy and receives a return signal whose intensity
depends on target characteristics (Kornelsen & Coulibaly, 2013). The returned signal which has been
recorded by the sensor is usually expressed as backscattering coefficient (σ0). The σ0 is mostly de-
pendent on soil moisture content mainly due to the dielectric constant (ε) of the soil (Prakash, Singh,
& Pathak, 2012; Schmugge, Jackson, & McKim, 1980), and thus provides a method of retrieving soil
water content. Therefore, microwave is the most suitable for the purpose of soil moisture because it
is free from atmospheric attenuation. Number of factors like vegetation, surface roughness, meas-
urement depth and topography affect the backscattering signal detected by the antenna (Bertoldi
et al., 2014; Kornelsen & Coulibaly, 2013; Petropoulos et al., in press; Schmugge et al., 1980; Ulaby et
al., 1986).
2.2. Passive microwave remote sensing

For soil moisture retrieval, passive microwave remote sensing has been considered to be superior
and more reliable in terms of lower frequencies than active microwave remote sensing (Petropoulos
et al., in press). A series of operational satellite-based passive microwave sensors have been avail-
able since 1978 and are represented in (Table 1) (Basist et al., 1998; Liu et al., 2011; Oza, Singh,
Dadhwal, & Desai, 2006; Singh, Mishra, Sahoo, & Dey, 2005). Among all passive microwave sensors,
more recently, the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer—Earth observing system (AMSR-E)
Page 3 of 21
Table 1. Passive microwave sensors used for the generation of the soil moisture data sets from 1978 to 2015
Parameter SMMR SSM/I TRMM MSMR AMSR-E SMOS SMAP
Launch date 1978–1987 1987/92/95 1997–2001 1999–2001 2002–2011 2009 2015
Frequency 6.6, 10.7, 18.0, 19.3, 22.2 (V), 10.65, 19.35, 6.6, 10.65, 18, 6.6, 10.65, 18.7, 1.4 1.41
(GHz) 21 and 37 38.0 and 85.5 22.24, 37.0 and 21 23.8, 36.5, 89
85.50
Polarization H and V H and V (except H and V (except H and V H and V H and V H, V and HV
22.2 GHz) 22.23 GHz) or VH
IFOV (km) 148 × 95, 69 × 43, 60 × 40, 11 × 8 150 × 144, 76 × 44, 49 × 28, 43 × 43 40 × 40
91 × 59, 37 × 28, 15 × 13 75 × 72, 28 × 16, 31 × 18,
55 × 41, 46 × 30, 50 × 36, 50 × 36 14 × 8, 6 × 4
27 × 18
Swath width 822 1400 880 1,360 1445 – 1,000
(km)
Revisit coverage – 1 2 2 3 3
(days)
Incidence angle 50.3 (at the 53.3 (at the 35.0 43.13 54 (at the 0–55 35–50
(deg.) surface) surface) surface)
on-board the Aqua satellite (since 2002), Soil moisture and ocean salinity satellite (SMOS since
2009), Multi-frequency Scanning Microwave Radiometer (MSMR since 1999) and Soil Moisture Active
Passive (SMAP) (since January 2015) are presently operational, providing satellite data for the globe
on a daily basis. Passive microwave remote sensing provides the temporal data of earth daily which
are applicable to models like numerical weather predictions (NWP) model (Anudeep, 2013). Passive
microwave instruments are typically characterized by wide swath and high temporal resolution, but
also coarse spatial resolutions around 10–30 km at L-band and C-band, respectively (Anudeep, 2013;
Moran, Peters-Lidard, Watts, & McElroy, 2004; Wigneron et al., 2003). The microwave ranges within
10–30 cm are not affected largely by the surface roughness, vegetation cover and soil texture rather
it is highly sensitive to the soil moisture (Chai et al., 2010).
The ESA launched SMOS mission on 2 November 2009. It is also the first-ever L-band passive mi-
crowave sensor dedicated to the global measurement of the Earth’s near-surface (up to 10 cm) soil
moisture (Petropoulos et al., in press). The spatial resolution of SMOS is sufficient enough to retrieve
soil moisture for many global applications. Combination of SMOS data with other sensors’ higher
resolution data can provide a potential solution for global soil moisture estimates (Petropoulos et al.,
in press).
SMAP mission was launched in January 2015. The SMAP sensor is designed in such a way to pro-
duce active (radar: VV, HH and HV polarizations) and passive (radiometer; V, H and high register and
4th Stokes parameter polarizations) soil moisture data simultaneously. Multiple polarizations help in
accurate soil moisture estimates with corrections for vegetation, surface roughness, Faraday rota-
tion and other perturbing factors in the 1.2–1.4 GHz range (L-band) from a sun-synchronous low
Earth orbit (Petropoulos et al., in press). The SMAP project is managed for NASA by the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory, with participation by the Goddard Space Flight Centre (Entekhabi et al., 2010).
3. Factors influencing microwave remote sensing

Surface characteristics, such as roughness and vegetation cover, have significant influence on the
backscattering coefficient; thus, it is very difficult to retrieve the soil moisture without detailed knowl-
edge of it (Altese, Bolognani, Mancini, & Troch, 1996; Anguela et al., 2010; Bertoldi et al., 2014;
Kornelsen & Coulibaly, 2013; Petropoulos et al., in press). In addition, number of radar sensor param-
eters, such as frequency, ε, polarization and θ with respect to nadir, influence the microwave backscat-
ter in several ways which are described as follows (Anguela et al., 2010; Bertoldi et al., 2014; Dobson &
Ulaby, 1981, 1986; Kornelsen & Coulibaly, 2013; Petropoulos et al., in press; Ualby et al., 1978):
Page 4 of 21
3.1. Dielectric constant (ε)

ε of moist soils is proportional to the number of water dipoles per unit volume (Dobson & Ulaby,
1986). Estimation of soil moisture with the use of microwave instruments is the perspective of sen-
sitivity of ε to water content for such instances (Chen et al., 2012; Hallikainen, Ulaby, Dobson, El-
rayes, & Wu, 1985). Real part of dielectric constant (ε′), which can vary from 2.5 for very dry soil to
25 for very moist soil, is a function of both the composition of the soil and the microwave frequency
(Singh & Kathpalia, 2007; Ulaby, Moore, & Fung, 1982). Several investigations have been initiated in
laboratory conditions to find out the effect of soil moisture, bulk density and soil texture on the net
dielectric behaviour of the soil medium using either guided-wave or free-space transmission tech-
niques (Dobson, Ulaby, Hallikainen, & El-Rayes, 1985; Gharechelou, Tateishi, & Sumantyo, 2015;
Hallikainen et al., 1985; Li, Zhao, Ren, Ding, & Wu, 2014; Wang & Schmugge, 1980). Grain size of soil
is another operating factor of ε due to their interstice water content (Hallikainen et al., 1985; Mironov,
Dobson, Kaupp, Komarov, & Kleshchenko, 2004; Srivastava, Patel, & Navalgund, 2006). Hallikainen et
al. (1985) generated empirical expressions for ε as a function of the volumetric moisture content (Mv)
and soil textural (sand (s) and clay (c) percent of weight) configuration (1).
( ) ( ) ( )
𝜀� or𝜀�� = a0 + a1 s + a2 c + b0 + b1 s + b2 c Mv + (c0 + c1 s + c2 c)M2v (1)
where, s and c are the percentage of sand and clay by weight, and ai, bi, and ci are the frequency
dependent coefficients. ε′ and ε″ are the real and imaginary parts of the dielectric constant.
Several models have been developed to correlate ε and soil moisture content. For soil moisture
retrieval studies, the polynomial expressions fitted by Hallikainen et al. (1985) and the semi-empiri-
cal four-component mixing model developed by Dobson et al. (1985) are general-purpose models of
ε. The latter model is valid for frequencies larger than 4 GHz and smaller than 18 GHz, which was
further extended for 0.3–1.3 GHz range by Peplinski, Ulaby, and Dobson (1995a, 1995b). Generalized
refractive mixing dielectric model (GRMDM) was developed by Mironov, Dobson, Kaupp, Komarov,
and Kleshchenko (2002) and is used to retrieve the soil complex ε, which is a function of frequency
for both free and bound soil water (Mironov et al., 2002, 2004). But, most common methods found in
the literature to relate the soil moisture and the ε without direct field measurement are done using
empirical curves of Hallikainen et al. (1985), which was extensively used by a number of researchers
(Rao et al., 2013). A site-specific calibration procedure was developed by D’Urso and Minaecapilli
(2006) for Oh, Sarabandi, and Ulaby (1992) model to derive soil ε without prior soil surface related
information.
3.2. Backscattering coefficient (σ0)

Backscattering coefficient is linearly dependent upon soil moisture at moisture levels below satura-
tion. Near saturation, the backscattering levels off, apparently becoming less sensitive to added in-
crements of water (Dobson et al., 1985). Soil moisture influences the backscattered quantity due to
the dielectric properties of the soil (Altese et al., 1996; Callens, Verhoest, & Davidson, 2006). When
the ε of a soil increases linearly, σ0 also increases, i.e. σ0 and soil moisture content become positively
correlated (Champion, 1996). Unit of σ0 is m2 m−2, but in general, it is expressed in dB (Wagner, 1998).
σ0 increases with an increase in soil moisture until the moisture content reaches 35 volumetric %
when the radar signal becomes insensitive to the soil moisture (Dobson & Ulaby, 1981; Gorrab, Zribi,
Baghdadi, Lili-Chabaane, & Mougenot, 2014; Ulaby et al., 1986; Zribi, Baghdadi, Holah, & Fafin, 2005).
From the numerous field experiments, the linear relationship between σ0 and Mv content is empiri-
cally expressed in Equation (2) (e.g. Champion, 1996):
𝜎 0 = A + B.W (2)
where A is the backscattering coefficient of a completely dry soil surface and B is the sensitivity of σ0
to change with the surface soil moisture content. A and B are regression coefficients dependent on
soil surface roughness, incidence angle and soil texture (Autret, Bernard, & Vidal-Madjar, 1989;
Bertuzzi, Chaànzy, Vidal-Madjar, & Autret, 1992; Champion & Faivre, 1997; Dobson & Ulaby, 1986;
Page 5 of 21
Ulaby & Batlivala, 1976; Wagner, 1998). A is primarily controlled by surface roughness and the inci-
dence angle (Dobson & Ulaby, 1986; Wagner, 1998).
However, field measurements have shown that the saturation effect at high moisture contents
and the supersaturated and flooded soils behave as specular surfaces, which yield lower backscat-
tering at off-nadir angles than non-saturated (but wet) soils (Dobson & Ulaby, 1981; Dobson et al.,
1985).
Theoretical research on scattering of electromagnetic waves by rough surfaces has been done
extensively and studies show that backscatter is very sensitive on the r.m.s (route mean square sur-
face height) and the autocorrelation function of the surface height variations (Fung, 1994; Tsang,
Kong, & Shin, 1985). However, in case of retrieval of σ0 from Integral Equation Method (IEM) in well-
defined situations shows good agreement with experimental results (Baghdadi, King, & Bonnifait,
2002; Baghdadi, King, Chanzy, et al., 2002).
3.3. Surface roughness

Soil surface roughness is one of the main indicators for mapping potential run-off surfaces because
it triggers the infiltration processes (Baghdadi, King, & Bonnifait, 2002). Surface roughness intensely
affects radar return and it is much more than the presence of surface soil moisture (Srivastava, Patel,
Manchanda, & Adiga, 2003; Srivastava et al., 2006; Srivastava, Yograjan, Jayaraman, Rao, &
Chandrasekhar, 1997). Incident radar beam is scattered in specular direction, rather it is directly
reflected back to the sensor depending on the magnitude of surface roughness, and thus the radar
image is constructed by part of reflected radar beam received by the antenna (Callens et al., 2006).
Numerous studies have proved that radar signal is more sensitive to surface roughness at high
incidence angles than at low incidence angles (Baghdadi, King, & Bonnifait, 2002; Baghdadi, Cerdan,
et al., 2008; Fung & Chan, 1992; Ulaby et al., 1986; Zribi & Dechambre, 2002). However, in case of
retrieval of σ0, radar return is sensitive to soil surface roughness parameter, especially dependent on
correlation length (L), whereas other surface parameters are not too much sensitive (Baghdadi, King,
& Bonnifait, 2002; Baghdadi, King, Chanzy, et al., 2002). Furthermore, measuring the L is a problem-
atic issue due to substantial instability of agricultural soils. Baghdadi, Paillou, Grandjean, Dubois, and
Davidson (2000) have shown that roughness parameters estimated from field measurements are
very sensitive to the length of the roughness profile, and also shown that the root mean square
surface height (r.m.s) and the L increase with profile length (Baghdadi et al., 2004).
Bryant et al. (2007) reported that the main source of retrieval errors is due to the differences in soil
roughness parameters resulting from different measurement techniques and roughness transects
(Baghdadi et al., 2000, 2006a). The discrepancies found are mainly related to the uncertainty in the
measured roughness parameters, especially with respect to the L (Baghdadi et al., 2000; Le Toan et
al., 1999). L was removed from the practical implementation in Oh (2004) due to measurement un-
certainty. To minimize the effect of L, Oh (2004) used r.m.s as a model parameter (13). But the L was
retrieved empirically and applied further explicitly by Baghdadai and Zribi. Dubois, Van Zyl, and
Engman (1995a) derived a backscattering model (16–17) which does not require any L as well as ERS
Scatterometer data (19, 21).
�
∑n ̄ 2
− Z)
i=0 (Zi
r.m.s = (3)
n−1
where Zi denotes the height of the point, Z̄ is the mean height and n is the total number of points
taken under consideration.
2.4. Bulk density

Soil bulk density (ρb) has a significant inverse relationship with microwave emission (Mattikalli,
Engman, Jackson, & Ahuja, 1998). The increasing bulk density of soil affects the dielectric properties
Page 6 of 21
of dry and moist soil (Hallikainen et al., 1985; Singh & Kathpalia, 2007; Ulaby et al., 1982). It has been
evident that dielectric parameters of soil at microwave frequencies are mainly the function of vari-
ous properties of soil such as texture, moisture, bulk density, temperature and soil type (Gupta &
Jangid, 2011a, 2011b).
3.5. Soil texture

Determination of direct soil texture through SAR images is a very difficult task. Soil texture affects
the backscattering coefficient by change in soil dielectric properties through its textural configura-
tion in terms of its water-holding capacity (Hallikainen et al., 1985). Sandy soils contain higher
amount of free water than clay soils (Kong & Dorling, 2008; Srivastava et al., 2006); thus, the Pearson
correlation between backscatter and soil moisture is higher in sandy soils (Blumberg et al., 2000).
Jackson and Schmugge (1989) found that water molecules are adsorbed onto the soil particles and
effectively immobilize their dipoles, disallowing bound water to interact with the radar signal.
Difference in texture explains the difference in surface drying rate. For this reason, difficulties can be
encountered in the interpretation of radar signals in cases where the vertical moisture profile varies
strongly in the first centimeters (Anguela et al., 2010). In the C-band, decreasing soil clay content
increases the sensitivity of the radar signal to soil moisture (Aubert et al., 2011; Ualby et al., 1978).
Because the distribution of grain sizes controls the amount of free water that interacts with the inci-
dent microwave, the amount of free water gives significant contribution to SAR backscatter (Aubert
et al., 2011; Srivastava et al., 2006; Srivastava, Patel, Sharma, & Navalgund, 2009).
3.6. Vegetation cover

Presence of vegetation over the soil surface reduces the backscattering sensitivity of soil, even if in
agricultural fields, soil moisture gradients near the surface can change rapidly (D’Urso & Minaecapilli,
2006). Vegetation cover also affects the soil moisture retrieval by microwave due to various factors
which are vegetation biomass, canopy type and configuration and crop condition (Bertoldi et al.,
2014; Kornelsen & Coulibaly, 2013; Petropoulos et al., in press). Vegetation effects become stronger in
case of dense vegetation as well as with the increase in microwave frequency. Among all microwave
bands, L-band measurements still yield good results under various canopy types because it has a
higher penetration power to vegetation canopy or vegetation cover to reach the soil surface, whereas
for C-band which is highly sensitive to vegetation cover may lead to a distorted measurement
(Jagdhuber, Hajnsek, Bronstert, & Papathanassiou, 2013; Vereecken et al., 2014; Western et al., 2004).
However, for X-band SAR signals of this wavelength (λ ~ 3 cm) are not able to penetrate vegetation
cover due to the way that dielectric permittivity of the biomass affects radar response (Baghdadi,
Aubert, & Zribi, 2012; Jagdhuber et al., 2013; Vereecken et al., 2014). The effect of vegetation cover is
also dependent upon the incidence angle and polarization of the instrument (Ulaby et al., 1986).
3.7. Incident angle (θ)

Local incidence angle has an important role to inversion of soil moisture with respect to surface
roughness condition of soil (Aubert et al., 2011; Baghdadi, Cerdan, et al., 2008). Numerous experi-
mental results and simulated data showed that sensitivity of radar signal is more sensitive to sur-
face roughness at high incidence angles than at low incidence angles. Though low incidence angles
are optimal for soil moisture estimation (Autret et al., 1989; Baghdadi, King, Chanzy, et al., 2002;
Holah, Baghdadi, Zribi, Bruand, & King, 2005; Ualby et al., 1978). Baghdadi, King, Chanzy, et al., 2002
have reported that high incidence angles (>45°) are suitable for the discrimination between smooth
and rough areas, under this conditions the backscattered signal has an exponential dependence on
surface roughness (e.g. Baghdadi, Cerdan, et al., 2008; Baghdadi, Zribi, et al., 2008; Zribi & Dechambre,
2002). The Frauenhofer criterion proposed in Ulaby et al. (1982) considers a soil surface as rough
when the phase difference between two rays scattered from separate points on the surface
(Δϕ = 2·k.r.m.s·cosθ) exceeds π/8 (r.m.s* λ/(32·cosθ)), where, Δϕ is phase difference, k is wave number,
k.r.m.s is electromagnetic surface roughness and λ is a wave length (Baghdadi, Zribi, et al., 2008).
They also observed that the dependence of the radar signal on surface roughness in agricultural
area is mainly significant for low levels of roughness and it is difficult to discriminate between rough-
ness greater than around 0.015 m with C-band SAR sensors (Baghdadi, Zribi, et al., 2008).
Page 7 of 21
3.8. Bands
The ability of radar sensor to measure soil moisture is very much hampered in the areas with high
vegetation dominance such as forest, because the lower microwave bands are inefficient to escape
from vegetation attenuation (Jagdhuber et al., 2013; Ulaby & El-Rayes, 1987; Vereecken et al., 2014;
Western et al., 2004). The crop canopies can also influence the σ0; because plants also affect the σ0
by their leaves dielectric behaviour. Dielectric behaviour of leaves was determined by direct meas-
urements of oven-dried various types of vegetation material to find out the influence on radar return
on complete dry condition and presence of water. Leaves have real part of the dielectric constant (ε′)
between 1.5 and 2, and imaginary part of the dielectric constant (ε″) is below 0.1 (Ulaby & El-Rayes,
1987).
On the other hand soil moisture estimation by shorter wavelength than C-band is hydrologically
inefficient due to the small surface penetration power (Ulaby, Dubois, & van Zyl, 1996), where as
L-band measurements still yield good results under various canopy types (Jagdhuber et al., 2013;
Vereecken et al., 2014; Western et al., 2004) (Figure 1). To retrieve soil moisture using C- and lower
bands (Table 2) requires more accurate roughness information for retrieval studies (Mattia et al.,
1997). Longer wavelength (> L-band) contains more soil profile information in the backscattered
signal (Ulaby et al., 1996). Thus, to minimize the influence of vegetation cover on radar images, long
wave bands and steep incident angles are preferred (Álvarez-Mozos et al., 2005).
Figure 1. Behaviour of three

different wave lengths due to
vegetation cover.
Note: The shorter microwave

signal (X-band, ~3 cm)
interacts mainly with the top of
the canopy cover, while C-band
(~8 cm) travel more than
X-band at vegetation canopy
while longer wavelengths
(L-band, ~24 cm) are able
to penetrate further into the
canopy and reflect from the
soil surface.
Table 2. Microwave bands and frequencies (Sengupta & Liepa, 2006)

S. No. Band Frequency range
1 HF 3–30 MHz
2 VHF 30–300 MHz
3 UHF 300–1,000 MHz
4 L 1–2 GHz
5 S 2–4 GHz
6 C 4–8 GHz
7 X 8–12 GHz
8 Ku 12–18 GHz
9 K 18–27 GHz
10 Ka 27–40 GHz
11 V 40–75 GHz
12 VV 75–110 GHz
13 Mm 110–300 GHz
Page 8 of 21
3.9. Polarization
Retrieval of soil moisture by radar return is highly dependent on surface geometry. This kind of prob-
lems could be minimized using multi-polarized and/or multi-frequency sensors systems (Baghdadi,
Cerdan, et al., 2008; Zribi & Dechambre, 2002). Hirosawa, Komiyama, and Matsuzaka (1978) in his
work used 9-GHz and his observations of Kanto loam confirmed that the cross-polarized sensitivity
to near-surface volumetric soil moisture was four times better than that of the like-polarized back-
scattering. The HH and HV polarizations are more sensitive to soil roughness than the VV polarization
(Holah et al., 2005), but Baghdadi, Cerdan, et al. (2008) found that retrieval of soil moisture by radar
signal was not influenced by polarization, using an assembled database of ERS-2, RADARSAT-1 and
ENVISAT data.
4. Models for retrieval of backscattering coefficient and soil moisture

Numerous theoretical, empirical and semi-empirical methods have been developed since the begin-
ning of SAR studies to relate the SAR backscatter coefficient to soil moisture (Baghdadi, El Hajj, et al.,
2006; Bryant et al., 2007; Dubois et al., 1995a; Fung, Li, & Chen, 1992; Haider, Said, Kothyari, & Arora,
2004; Oh et al., 1992; Sanli, Kurucu, Esetlili, & Abdikan, 2008; Srivastava et al., 2009; Wang & Qu, 2009).
These theoretical models were derived from the electromagnetic theory. These theories are depend-
ent on the site and surface type on which they were developed and tested by considering the inci-
dence angle, λ and soil parameters (Baghdadi et al., 2004; D’Urso and Minaecapilli, 2006; Wang & Qu,
2009). Some of the most used models have been described below.
4.1. Most used theoretical models for active imaging microwave data
Theoretical models are used to derive the general trend of σ0 in respect to soil moisture content and
surface roughness (Dubois & van Zyl, 1994; Wang & Qu, 2009). Number of factors, surface rough-
ness, ε, polarization and problem of electromagnetic wave scattering from random surfaces, influ-
ence the retrieval of σ0, which has long been studied because of its complexity (Wang & Qu, 2009).
Numerous currently used surface scattering models have been developed from the small pertur-
bation method (SPM) (Rice, 1951) and the Kirchhoff model (Beckmann & Spizzichino, 1963), which
limits the range of roughness conditions (Wang & Qu, 2009). Perturbation solutions can be used
whenever the soil surface slightly deviates from smooth to rough surfaces, and in SPM (Rice, 1951;
Tsang et al., 1985), the r.m.s height must be much smaller than the wavelength and the r.m.s slope
should be of the same order of magnitude as the wave number times the r.m.s height (Rice, 1951).
A perturbation method based on perturbation expansion of the phase of the surface field (PPM) was
developed which extends the region of validity of SPM to higher values of the r.m.s height, provided
the slope remains relatively small (Winebrenner & Ishimaru, 1985). The other limiting case is when
surface irregularities are large compared to the wavelength, which is equivalent to having a large
radius of curvature at each point on the surface. In this type of limiting conditions, the Kirchhoff ap-
proximation (KA) is applicable (Boisvert et al., 1997; Ulaby et al., 1986). Various types of modifica-
tions and improvements to this model can be found in the literature. Extended validity of the KA
solution was considered by Oh et al. (1992) but in limited extent.
Oh et al. (1992) developed an empirical model for retrieving soil moisture using the multi-polar-
ized radar signal (HH, VV, HV and VH), and tried to find out the extended validity of KA and SPM model
to measure surface roughness (Oh et al., 1992). Using the multi-polarized radar signal and consider-
0 0 0 0
ing the co-polarized (p = 𝜎HH ∕𝜎VV) and cross-polarized (q = 𝜎HH ∕𝜎VV) ratio, this model could predict
the r.m.s height of the surface and soil ε. Oh, Sarabandi, and Ulaby (1993) modified and developed
an empirical relation between the co-polarized phase parameters and roughness and ε of rough
surfaces, where α is the degree of correlation, which is a measure of width of probability density
function of a co-polarized phase angle. Oh, Sarabandi, and Ulaby (1994) modified the expression of
cross-polarized ratio (q) in respect to Oh et al. (1992) for the same purpose. The expressions for p and
q were further modified in 2002, and a new expression was proposed for the cross-polarized back-
scatter coefficient (Oh et al., 2002). Oh (2004) further updated semi-empirical polarimetric
Page 9 of 21
backscattering model to retrieve both Mv and k.r.m.s (electromagnetic surface roughness) height by
subsequent modification of q in respect of Oh et al. (2002).
A site-specific calibration procedure was developed by D’Urso and Minaecapilli (2006) for Oh et al.’s
model (1992) to derive soil moisture content without prior information of surface roughness and soil
water content.
The initial version of the Oh’s model was presented by Oh et al. (1992) in Equations (4–6).
0
[ ( )1∕3Γ0 ]2
𝜎HH 𝜃
p= = 1− e −k.r.m.s (4)
0 ◦
𝜎VV 90
0
𝜎HH √ � �
q= 0
= 0.23 Γ0 1 − e−k.r.m.s (5)
𝜎VV
� 1 − √𝜀 � 2
� r�
Γ0 = �� √ �� (6)
� 1 + 𝜀r �
� �
0 0 0 0
where co-polarized ratio p (p = 𝜎HH ∕𝜎VV) and the cross-polarized ratio q (q = 𝜎HV ∕𝜎VV) to incident
angle (θ), wave number (k) and Fresnel reflectivity of the surface at nadir (Г0). The parameters p and
0 0 0
q are derived by empirical fitting to the ground-based measurements of 𝜎HH , 𝜎VV and 𝜎HV.
A new expression for q was proposed by Oh et al. (1994) to incorporate the effect of the incidence
angle in Equation (7).
√ ( )
q = 0.25 Γ0 (0.1 + sin0.9 𝜃) 1 − e−[1.4−1.6Γ0 ]k.r.m.s (7)
The expressions for p and q were again modified in 2002, and an expression was proposed for the
cross-polarized backscatter coefficient, expressed in Equations (8–10) (Oh, Sarabandi, & Ulaby,
2002):
( )0.35 Mv −0.65
𝜃 1.4
p=1− e−0.4 (k.r.m.s) (8)
90◦
( )1.2 ( )
r.m.s 0.8
q = 0.1 + sin 1.3𝜃 1 − e−0.9 (k.r.m.s) (9)

L
( 1.8
)
0
𝜎HV = 0.11 Mv 0.7 cos2.2 𝜃 1 − e−0.32 (k.r.m.s) (10)
Given that the measurement of the correlation length may not be exact (Baghdadi et al., 2000; Oh &
Kay, 1998) and that the ratio q is insensitive to the roughness parameter, Oh (2004) proposed a new
formulation for q that ignores the correlation length (11).
( )1.4 ( 0.9
)
q = 0.095 0.13 + sin 1.5𝜃 1 − e−1.3(k.r.m.s) (11)
The general formula to retrieve backscattering coefficient is expressed in Equation (12).

0
0
𝜎HV
𝜎VV =
q (12)
Page 10 of 21
0
where 𝜎HV was derived from Equation (10).
p 0
0
𝜎HH 0
= p 𝜎VV = 𝜎 (13)
q HV
0
The estimates of r.m.s and Mv can also be obtained from the measurements of 𝜎HV and p by the sim-
ple computation in Equation (10). Solving Equation (10) for the estimate of k.r.m.s yields Equation
(14).
[ { }]0.556
( ) 0
𝜎VHM
0
k.r.m.s 𝜃, Mv , 𝜎VHM = −3.125ln 1− (14)
0.11M0.7
v (cos𝜃)
2.2
0
where 𝜎VHM is the measurement of the VH-polarized scattering coefficient.
𝜃 0.35Mv −0.65 −0.4 0

1−( ) .e [k.r.m.s(𝜃, Mv, 𝜎VHM ]1.4 − pm = 0 (15)
90◦
From the above Equation (15), Mv can be estimated, where pm denotes the measured co-polarized
0
ratio of p and k.r.m.s (θ,Mv, 𝜎VHM) given in Equation (14) and k.r.m.s can computed from Equation (14)
and r.m.s height can also be obtained subsequently (Oh, 2004).
Dubois et al. (1995a) developed an empirical algorithm for the retrieval of soil moisture content
and r.m.s from remotely sensed scatterometer data. The algorithm was optimized for bare surfaces
and developed with data for frequencies varying between 1.5 (λ = 0.205 m) and 11 GHz (λ = 0.028 m),
roughness ranging from 0.003 to 0.03 m and incidence angles between 30 and 45°. Using two co-
polarized signals and omitting the usually weaker HV-polarized returns made the algorithm less
sensitive to system. Dubois et al. (1995a) chose to use only the co-polarized backscatter signal in-
stead of cross-polarized signals because they are less sensitive to vegetation, easy to calibrate and
less susceptible to system noise. The empirical model of Dubois et al. (1995a) was widely used in
retrieval of soil moisture (Rao et al., 2013) (16, 17). Even this model could be used in sparsely vege-
tated surfaces but limiting towards normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) up to 0.4 (Neusch
& Sties, 1999; Sikdar & Cumming, 2004). Dubois model is not valid for P-band (Western et al., 2004).
To increase the domain of applicability of this model, Dubois et al. (1995a) found that vegetation
0 0
effects could be minimized by excluding areas where the L-band 𝜎LHV ∕𝜎LVV ratio (an index of vegeta-
tion cover) exceeds −11 dB.
( )
cos1.5 𝜃
0
𝜎HH = 10 −2.75
5
100.028𝜀 tan𝜃 (k.r.m.s sin 𝜃)1.4 𝜆0.7 (16)
sin 𝜃
( )
cos3 𝜃
0
𝜎VV = 10−2.35 100.046𝜀 tan𝜃 (k.r.m.s sin 𝜃)1.1 𝜆0.7
sin3 𝜃 (17)
4.2. Physical model for active imaging microwave data

The physical models evolved to predict the radar σ0 and soil characteristics using the theoretical ap-
proaches of radar return. Physical models have site-specific dependencies and are limited to the
range of roughness (Baghdadi, El Hajj, et al., 2006; Paloscia, Pampaloni, Pettinato, & Santi, 2008). The
integral equation model (IEM) (Fung et al., 1992) is a widely used physical model to retrieve σ0 by
considering roughness parameters. IEM’s validity domain covers wide range of surface roughness
values encountered on agricultural soils. IEM model (Fung, 1994) provided a good result in labora-
tory experiments (Mancini, Hoeben, & Troch, 1999) but was unable to shown a good retrieval capa-
bility in field base measurement (Altese et al., 1996; Baghdadi, Holah, & Zribi, 2006b; Paloscia et al.,
2008). The major difficulty associated with this model was that it was highly sensitive to surface
roughness in terms of L and r.m.s height (Davidson et al., 2000). To minimize the retrieval error,
Baghdadi, King, Chanzy, et al. (2002), Baghdadi, King, and Bonnifait (2002) developed a calibration
Page 11 of 21
method to retrieve soil moisture with low retrieval error by IEM. As IEM is dependent on surface
roughness, L, Baghdadi, King, Chanzy, et al. (2002), Baghdadi, King, and Bonnifait (2002) developed
an optical correlation length (Lopt) to derive σ0 with minimum error.
4.3. Topp model

Topp model (Topp, Davis, & Annan, 1980) has been effectively used to derive soil moisture from soil
ε (Song et al., 2010) (18). Topp model is used to create a comparative study with retrieved soil mois-
ture and σ0 for each of the theoretical and physical models (Aqil & Schmitt, 2010; Rao et al., 2013).
To derive soil moisture, this model does not require any prior knowledge of soil texture and surface
roughness and Mv can be retrieved by algorithm (18).
Mv = −5.3 × 10−2 + 2.92 × 10−2 𝜀� − 5.5 × 10−4 𝜀�2 + 4.3 × 10−6 𝜀�3 (18)
4.4. Relative (ms) and profile (W(t)) soil moisture content

Soil moisture retrieval method for ERS Scatteromater data was presented by Magagi and Kerr (1997),
Pulliainen, Manninen, and Hallikainen (1998), Wagner, Noll, Borgeaud, and Rott (1999) and Wagner,
Lemoine, Borgeaud, and Rott (1999). This method of profile soil moisture content (W) retrieval was
explicitly described by Wagner, Lemoine, et al. (1999). This experiment required auxiliary informa-
tion on soil type, soil texture, bulk density (kg m−3), wilting level of both gravimetric and volumetric
units, field capacity (FC) in mm and porosity/total water capacity (TWC) in mm. FC is the saturation
level of soil with water when deep percolation nearly stops, and porosity is relative pore volume of
the soil and is equal to the TWC of the soil. To retrieve soil moisture, the method compared time
series data of σ0 with standard reference incident angle 40° of ERS Scatterometer data. From this
0 0
time series data, highest and lowest σ0 were determined and denoted as 𝜎wet (40, t) and 𝜎dry (40, t),
0
where 40° is the reference incident angle. 𝜎dry is considered to be the lowest σ when no liquid water
0
0
is present in the soil surface layer and 𝜎wet (40, t) is the highest σ0 of the soil surface layer when it is
0 0
saturated with water. 𝜎wet (40, t) and 𝜎dry (40, t) were calculated according to Wagner, Noll, et al.
(1999).
The relative soil moisture content (ms) was calculated according to Wagner, Lemoine, et al. (1999)
(19).
( )
𝜎 0 40, t − 𝜎dry
0
(40, t)
ms (t) = 0 ( ) 0 (19)
𝜎wet 40, t − 𝜎dry (40, t)
Mv of surface layer can be estimated by multiplying the ms with the soil porosity or TWC and this ms
is considered to be the degree of saturation (Wagner, Lemoine, & Rott, 1999).
However, several simple models are used in soil moisture estimation, but with the increase in time
lag, the potentiality of measurement decreased simultaneously. Thus, to improve the retrieval
potentiality, temporal variations in terms of characteristic time length (T) were taken into considera-
tion in soil water index (SWI) as given by Equation (20).
∑
i ms (ti )e−(t−ti )∕T
SWI(t) = ∑ −(t−ti )∕T for ti ≤ t (20)
ie
where ms is the surface soil moisture estimated from the ERS Scatterometer at time ti. The SWI is
calculated if there is at least one ERS Scatterometer measurement in the time interval [t−T,t] and at
least three measurements in the interval [t−5T,t]. Parameter T is the characteristic time length
(Wagner, Lemoine, & Rott, 1999).
The profile soil moisture content W at time t can be estimated from SWI (21).
Page 12 of 21
W(t) = Wmin + SWI(t).(Wmax − Wmin ) (21)
SWI is the trend indicator which ranges between 0 and 1. Wmin and Wmax are the minimum and maxi-
mum wetness values.
4.5. Passive radiometric models
4.5.1. Radiative transfer model

Radiative transfer model (Njoku, 1999) is used to retrieve Mv. The algorithm requires the values of Te
(physical temperature) and We (vegetation columnar water content). The baseline algorithm (Njoku,
1999) uses two lowest AMSR frequencies (6.9 and 10.7 GHz), because above ~10 GHz frequency,
surface roughness and vegetation scattering effects produce complexity and uncertainty in derived
products. These frequencies have better vegetation penetration and soil moisture sensitivity,
although with decreased spatial resolution (Njoku, 1999). In general parameter retrieval algorithms,
the land surface is modelled as absorbing vegetation layer above soil in Figure 2.
The brightness temperature (TBp) observed at the top of the atmosphere at a given incidence angle
and at a given frequency can be expressed by the radiative transfer Equation (22) (Njoku, 1999).
( ){ ( )} { ( ) ( )
TBp = Tu + exp −𝜏c [ Td rsp exp −2𝜏c + esp Ts exp −𝜏c + Tc 1 − 𝜔p
[ ( )][ ( )]} (22)
1 − exp −𝜏c 1 + rsp exp −𝜏c ]
where, Tu is the upwelling atmospheric temperature (K), Td is the downwelling atmospheric tempera-
ture (K), Ta is the atmospheric opacity, Tc is the vegetation temperature (K), τc is the vegetation opac-
ity, rsp is the soil reflectivity, Ts is the effective soil temperature (K) (the effective temperature is the
weighted-average temperature over the microwave penetration depth in the medium) and ωp is the
vegetation single-scattering albedo.
A simplified approximation is that the vegetation and underlying soil are close to the same physi-
cal temperature Te. This approximation does not degrade the moisture retrieval accuracy, but will
result in the retrieval of a mean or “effective” radiating temperature of the composite soil/vegeta-
tion medium.
Substituting Ts ≅ Tc = Te in Equation (22), we obtain Equation (23).
( )[{ ( )} { ( ) ( )
TBp = Tu + exp −𝜏a Td rsp exp −2𝜏c + Te (1 − rsp ) exp −𝜏c + 1 − 𝜔p
[ ( )][ ( )]}] (23)
1 − exp −𝜏c 1 + rsp exp −𝜏c
4.5.1.1. Atmosphere. Standard expression for Tu and Td can be obtained from the literature (Hofer &
Njoku, 1981; Njoku, 1999; Njoku & Li, 1999). At atmospheric window frequencies Tu and Td, it can be
expressed using the effective radiating temperature approximation as Equation (24) (ignoring the
space contribution to Td):
Figure 2. Model representation

of a space-borne radiometer,
viewing a heterogeneous earth
surface (Njoku, 1999).
Page 13 of 21
( )
Tu ≅ Td ≅ Tae [1 − exp −𝜏a ] (24)
where Tae is the mean temperature of the microwave-emitting region of the atmosphere. This
expression is valid for most atmospheric water vapour and cloud conditions. Tae is frequency depend-
ent and also depends on the distributions of temperature, humidity and liquid water. Tae may be
expressed simply as a function of the surface air temperature Tas and a frequency-dependent offset
δTa in Equation (25).
Tae ≈ Tas − 𝛿Ta (25)
The effect of uncertainty in Tae on the observed TBp is sufficiently small. The opacity τa along the
atmospheric path is dependent on the viewing angle θ and the precipitable/vertical-column amounts
of water qv and vertical-column cloud liquid water ql. It can be expressed (for a plane parallel atmos-
phere) in Equation (26).
𝜏a = (t0 + av qv + a1 q1 )∕cos𝜃 (26)
where τo is the oxygen opacity at nadir and av and al are frequency-dependent coefficients and view-
ing angle θ.
4.5.1.2. Surface. The dependence of τc on vegetation columnar water content follows an approxi-
mately linear relationship, depicted in Equation (27) (Njoku, 1999).
𝜏c = bwe ∕cos𝜃 (27)
where cosθ accounts for the slant path through the vegetation. The coefficient b depends on canopy
structure and frequency. Theory and experimental data suggest that for a given vegetation type (b),
is approximately proportional to frequencies below ~10 GHz (Jackson & Schmugge, 1991; Levine &
Karam, 1996).
This indicates that at higher frequencies, the frequency dependence of b decreases and its de-
pendence on canopy structure eventually increases. This provides rationale for restricting the physi-
cally based retrieval algorithm to be in between 6.9 and 10.7 GHz.
The reflectivity of rough soil, rsp, is related to that of smooth soil; rop is computed by Equations (28)
and (29) (Njoku & Li, 1999):
[( ) ]
rsv = 1 − Q rov + Qroh exp(−h) (28)
[( ) ]
rsh = 1 − Q roh + Qrov exp(−h) (29)
where rsv and rsh denoted the reflectivity of soil for both polarizations horizontal and vertical.
Expression for h and Q is expressed in Equations (30) and (31).
[ ( )]
Q = 0.35 1 − exp −0.6.𝜎 2 .𝜆 (30)
4𝜋𝜎 cos𝜃 2
h=( ) (31)
𝜆
where λ is the wavelength of the radiometer and σ is the surface r.m.s height.
Page 14 of 21
� √ �2
� 𝜀r cos𝜃 − 𝜀r − sin2 𝜃 �
rov �
=� √ � (32)
�
� 𝜀r cos𝜃 + 𝜀r − sin2 𝜃 �
� �
� √ �2
� cos𝜃 − 𝜀r − sin2 𝜃 �
roh �
=� √ � (33)
�
� cos𝜃 + 𝜀r − sin2 𝜃 �
� �
The Fresnel expressions relate the reflectivities rov and roh of a smooth, homogeneous soil to the
complex dielectric constant of the soil εr. In the above equation, θ is the incidence angle relative to
the surface normal. For a given frequency, the dielectric constant depends on the Mv and to a lesser
extent on the soil type. This relationship can be expressed in Equation (34).
𝜀r = f (Mv ; 𝜌b , s, c) (34)
where Mv is the volumetric moisture content, ρb is the soil bulk density and s and c are soil and clay
fraction.
4.5.2. Change detection algorithm

Global SWI is also known as the Basist wetness index (Basist, Grody, Peterson, & Williams, 1998).
Surface wetness Index (SWI) is used to retrieve surface soil moisture using multi-temporal data
from multi-frequency passive microwave radiometer (SSM/I). A change detection algorithm is used
to compute soil moisture (SM) from SWI variations by considering field capacity and air–dry status,
pixel by pixel (Oza et al., 2006; Singh, Oza, Chaudhari, & Dadhwal, 2005). Air–dry moisture status is
considered to be minimum soil water content when SWI value is lowest and is considered to be
maximum soil water content when SWI value is highest. Field-capacity and air–dry moisture status
are obtained by considering multi temporal SWI data (Oza et al., 2006). The added advantage was
that they have higher sensitivity towards soil moisture and less towards the surface geometry (Basist
et al., 1998; Singh, Oza, Chaudhari, & Dhawal, 2005; Oza et al., 2006). By comparing the emissivity
and wave frequency, Basist et al. (1998) developed a relation to derive SWI. SWI is proportional to
the slope of emissivity as a function of frequency and is defined in Equation (35) (Basist et al., 1998).
SWI = Δ ∈ Ts (35)
where
[ ( ) ( )] ( ) ( )
Δ ∈= 𝛽0 ∈ f2 − ∈ f1 + 𝛽1 [∈ f3 − ∈ f2 ] (36)
where Ts is the surface temperature, f1, f2 and f3 represent operated vertical channels (frequency)
and β0 and β1 are proportionality constants.
� �
⎡ ⎤
⎢ M fc − M ad ⎥
SMi = Mad + ⎢ ⎥(SWIi − SWImin )
⎢ SWI max − SWI min ⎥ (37)
⎣ ⎦
where SMi is the soil moisture at pixel i, Mfc is the field capacity of soil at pixel i, Mad is air–dry moisture
level of soil at pixel i, SWI max and SWI min are the maximum and minimum SWI on multi-temporal
data-set at pixel i and SWIi is SWI in wetness composite image at pixel i.
Singh, Mishra, Shaoo, and Dey (2005) retrieved the soil moisture using IRS P4 (Oceansat 1) MSMR
data. Algorithm of Gohill (1999) has been used to derive soil moisture at 6.6 GHz frequency because
that frequency can’t be affected by atmospheric attenuation or vegetation sensitivity. For radiome-
ters working in shorter wavelength ranges, atmospheric attenuation and emission of the signal can
be expressed as (Engman, 1991; Schmugge, 1985):
Page 15 of 21
[ ]
TB = t(H) rTsky + (1 − r)Tsoil + {1 − t(H)}Tatm (38)
where e = (1−r) is the emissivity, TB is the microwave brightness temperature, t(H) is the atmospheric
transmission, r is the surface reflectivity and Tsky, Tsoil, Tatm are temperatures of sky, soil and atmos-
phere respectively.
The SM has been estimated using 6.6 GHz horizontally polarized MSMR data using Equation (39)
(Gohill, 1999):
( )
SM = −0.284TB6.6H + 76.2 (39)
where SM is the soil moisture, total amount of water available (% volume) and TB6.6H is the brightness
temperature at 6.6 GHz frequency in horizontal polarization.
4.5.3. Optimization of models

How to invert the moisture, soil texture and roughness from remote sensing data has been one of
the most interesting problems to be resolved. Lots of theoretical and empirical models (Dubois et al.,
1995a; Fung et al., 1992; Oh, 2004; Oh et al., 1992; Satalino, Mattia, Pasquariello, & Dente, 2005;
Ulaby et al., 1982) were developed to retrieve the moisture content and roughness, but limitations
of these models are that they can invert a few parameters only depending upon the number of the
data-sets. Optimization techniques generally started to retrieve more of the parameters with less
number of datasets. Nowadays, commonly used optimization techniques are artificial neural net-
works (ANN) (Lakhankar, Ghedira, & Khanbilvardi, 2006; Zhao et al., 2003) and genetic algorithms
(GA) (Jin & Wang, 2000; Singh & Kathpalia, 2007).
5. Conclusion
The aim of this paper is to provide a systematic review on different basic soil moisture retrieval
methods and models since 1978 until 2015 for both active and passive microwave remote sensing.
Each of the methods and models has its own limitations of retrieval capacity in terms of their micro-
wave bands (L-, C- and X-) used or in their target surface characteristics. However, the fact is that the
contribution of other factors that influences the soil reflectance may not be effectively minimized.
To overcome these problems, SAR has shown its large potential for retrieving soil moisture maps
at regional scales. However, since the backscattered signal is determined by several surface charac-
teristics, the retrieval of soil moisture is an ill-posed problem when using single-configuration
imagery. The advent of new, high-resolution sensors observing in X- and L-band, and C-band sensors
yielding polarimetric data (HH, VV, HV and VH) allow for a better characterization of surface param-
eters. Along with the sensor configuration, different inversion methods have different validity
regions. In hydrological perspective, L-band measurements yield good results under various canopy
types due to high penetration power (Western et al., 2004). Passive microwave has more potential
for large-scale soil moisture monitoring, but has a low spatial resolution. Active microwave can pro-
vide high spatial resolution, but has low revisit frequency and is more sensitive to soil roughness and
vegetation. At microwave frequencies, many natural surfaces do not fall into the validity regions of
the theoretical models, and even when they do, the available models fail to provide results in good
agreement with experimental observations due to the following reasons (Oh et al., 1992):
(a) Dubois et al. (1995a), Dubois, VanZyl, and Engman (1995b) could yield good results of an area
having normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) up to 0.4 (Neusch & Sties, 1999; Sikdar &
Cumming, 2004), but the range of this NDVI value is not valid for P-band (Western et al., 2004).
(b) The major difficulty associated with Oh model (Oh et al., 1992) is that the model is highly sensi-
tive to surface roughness in terms of correlation length (L) and r.m.s height (Davidson et al.,
2000). To minimize the effect of surface roughness, the Oh (2004) model was further modified
to remove the effect of correlation length.
Page 16 of 21
(c) However, ERS Scatterometer data have evolved to estimate the soil profile moisture content
(W) by considering temporal variations.
(d) Soil moisture can be estimated using passive radiometer; for radiometer brightness tempera-
ture (TBp), it was shown to be sensitive to soil moisture.
(e) For IRS P4 (Oceansat 1) MSMR data, Gohill (1999) developed an algorithm to retrieve soil mois-
ture at 6.6 GHz frequency.
Beside the active microwave remote sensing, ESA launched SMOS on 2 November 2009 which is
the first L-band passive satellite sensor dedicated for global soil moisture estimation. Thereafter
SMAP mission is for first-tire mission by NRC launch in January 2015, for estimation of soil moisture
in L-band for both active and passive modes with each polarization (HH, VV, HV or VH). Furthermore,
ESA is developing to launch Sentinel-1 mission that includes radar and multi-spectral imaging in-
struments for land, ocean and atmospheric monitoring (ESA, 2014). This mission can be able to
provide high spatial (<1 km) and temporal (every 6 days globally) soil moisture data.
Funding Aqil, S., & Schmitt, D. R. (2010, May 10-14). Dielectric

The authors received no direct funding for this research. permittivity of clay adsorbed water: Effect of salinity
(AAPG Search and Discovery Article #90172 © CSPG/CSEG/
Author details CWLS, pp. 1–4). In GeoConvention 2010. Calgary.
Kousik Das1 Aubert, M., Baghdadi, N., Zribi, M., Douaoui, A., Loumagne, C.,
E-mail: [email protected] Baup, F., …Garrigues, S. (2011). Analysis of TerraSAR-X data
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7914-2276 sensitivity to bare soil moisture, roughness, composition
and soil crust. Remote Sensing of Environment, 115, 1801–
Prabir Kumar Paul1
1810. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2011.02.021
E-mail: [email protected]
Autret, M., Bernard, R., & Vidal-Madjar, D. (1989).
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000 -0002-6222-3408
Theoretical study of the sensitivity of the microwave
1
Department of Mining Engineering, Indian Institute of backscattering coefficient to the soil surface parameters.
Engineering Science and Technology, Shibpur, Howrah, India. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 10, 171–179.
doi:10.1080/01431168908903854
Citation information Baghdadi, N., Aubert, M., & Zribi, M. (2012). Use of TerraSAR-X
Cite this article as: Present status of soil moisture data to retrieve soil moisture over bare soil agricultural
estimation by microwave remote sensing, Kousik Das & fields. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 9,
Prabir Kumar Paul, Cogent Geoscience (2015), 1: 1084669. 512–516. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/LGRS.2011.2173155
Baghdadi, N., Cerdan, O., Zribi, M., Auzet, V., Darboux, F., El
Cover image Hajj, M., & Kheir, R. B. (2008). Operational performance
Source: Authors. of current synthetic aperture radar sensors in mapping
soil surface characteristics in agricultural environments:
References Application to hydrological and erosion modelling.
Altese, E., Bolognani, O., Mancini, M., & Troch, P. A. (1996). Hydrological Processes, 22, 9–20. doi:10.1002/hyp.6609
Retrieving soil moisture over bare soil from ERS 1 Baghdadi, N., Gherboudj, I., Zribi, M. M., Sahebi, M., King, C.,
synthetic aperture radar data: Sensitivity analysis & Bonn, F. (2004). Semi-empirical calibration of the IEM
based on a theoretical surface scattering model and backscattering model using radar images and moisture
field data. Water Resources Research, 32, 653–661. and roughness field measurements. International Journal
doi:10.1029/95WR03638 of Remote Sensing, 25, 3593–3623. doi:10.1080/0143116
Álvarez-Mozos, J., Casalí, J., González-Audícana, M., & Verhoest, 0310001654392
N. E. C. (2005). Correlation between ground measured Baghdadi, N., Holah, N., & Zribi, M. (2006a). Soil moisture
soil moisture and RADARSAT-1 derived backscattering estimation using multi-incidence and multi-polarization
coefficient over an agricultural catchment of Navarre ASAR data. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 27,
(North of Spain). Biosystems Engineering, 92, 119–133. 1907–1920. doi:10.1080/01431160500239032
doi:10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2005.06.008 Baghdadi, N., Holah, N., & Zribi, M. (2006b). Calibration of the
Al-Yaari, A., Wigneron, J. P., Ducharne, A., Kerr, Y. H., Wagner, integral equation model for SAR data in C‐band and HH
W., De Lannoy, G., … Mialon, A. (2014). Global-scale and VV polarizations. International Journal of Remote
comparison of passive (SMOS) and active (ASCAT) satellite Sensing, 27, 805–816.
based microwave soil moisture retrievals with soil http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01431160500212278
moisture simulations (MERRA-Land). Remote Sensing of Baghdadi, N., King, C., Chanzy, A., & Wigneron, J. P. (2002).
Environment, 152, 614–626. An empirical calibration of the integral equation
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2014.07.013 model based on SAR data, soil moisture and surface
Anguela, T. P., Zribi, M., Baghdadi, N., & Loumagne, C. (2010). roughness measurement over bare soils. International
Analysis of local variation of soil surface parameters Journal of Remote Sensing, 23, 4325–4340.
with TerraSAR-X Radar data over bare agricultural fields. doi:10.1080/01431160110107671
IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 48, Baghdadi, N., King, C., & Bonnifait, L. (2002). An empirical
874–881. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2009.2028019 calibration of the integral equation model based on
Anudeep, S. (2013). Blending approach for soil moisture SAR data and soil parameters measurements. In
retrieval using microwave remote sensing (MTech Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, IGARSS ‘02
dissertation, Andhra University, pp. 1–95). Indian Institute (pp. 2646–2650). 2002 IEEE International. doi:10.1109/
of Remote Sensing, ISRO, Dehradun. IGARSS.2002.1026729
Page 17 of 21
Baghdadi, N., Paillou, P., Grandjean, G., Dubois, P., & Chow, V. T., Maidment, D. R., & Mays, L. W. (1988). Applied
Davidson, M. (2000). Relationship between profile hydrology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
length and roughness variables for natural surfaces. D′Urso, G., & Minacapilli, M. (2006). A semi-empirical approach
International Journal of Remote Sensing, 21, 3375–3381. for surface soil water content estimation from radar
doi:10.1080/014311600750019994 data without a priori information on surface roughness.
Baghdadi, N., Zribi, M., Loumagne, C., Ansart, P., & Anguela, T. Journal of Hydrology, 321, 297–310. doi:10.1016/j.
P. (2008). Analysis of TerraSAR-X data and their sensitivity jhydrol.2005.08.013
to soil surface parameters over bare agricultural fields. Davidson, M. W. J., Le Toan, T., Mattia, F., Satalino, G., Manninen,
Remote Sensing of Environment, 112, 4370–4379. T., & Borgeaud, M. (2000). On the characterization of
doi:10.1016/j.rse.2008.08.004 agricultural soil roughness for radar remote sensing
Basist, A., Grody, N. C., Peterson, T. C., & Williams, C. N. studies. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote
(1998). Using the special sensor microwave/imager to Sensing, 38, 630–640.
monitor land surface temperatures, wetness, and snow http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/36.841993
cover. Journal of Applied Meteorology, 37, 888–911. Dobson, M. C., & Ulaby, F. T. (1981). Microwave backscatter
doi:10.1175/1520-0450(1998)037<0888:UTSSMI>2.0.CO;2 dependence on surface roughness, soil moisture, and
Batlivala, P. P. & Ulaby, F. T. (1977). Feasibility of monitoring soil soil texture: Part III-soil tension. IEEE Transactions on
moisture using active microwave remote sensing Remote Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 19, 51–61. doi:10.1109/
Sensing Laboratory (Technical Report 264–12). Lawrence: TGRS.1981.350328
University of Kansas. Dobson, M. C., & Ulaby, F. T. (1986). Active microwave soil
Beckmann, P., & Spizzichino, A. (1963). The scattering of moisture research. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience
electromagnetic waves from rough surfaces (Chapters 3 and Remote Sensing, 24, 23–36. doi:10.1109/
and 5). New York, NY: MacMillan. TGRS.1986.289585
Bertoldi, G., Chiesa, S. D., Notarnicola, C., Pasolli, L., Niedrist, Dobson, M. C., Ulaby, F. T., Hallikainen, M. T., & El-Rayes, M.
G., & Tappeiner, U. (2014). Estimation of soil moisture A. (1985). Microwave dielectric behavior of wet soil-
patterns in mountain grasslands by means of SAR Part II: Dielectric mixing models. IEEE Transactions on
RADARSAT2 images and hydrological modeling. Journal of Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 23, 35–46. doi:10.1109/
Hydrology, 516, 245–257. TGRS.1985.289498
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.02.018 Dubois, P., & van Zyl, J. (1994). An empirical soil moisture
Bertuzzi, P., Chaànzy, A., Vidal-Madjar, D., & Autret, M. estimation algorithm using imaging radar. Proceedings
(1992). The use of a microwave backscatter model for of IGARSS’94, IEEE 3 (pp. 1573–1575). doi: 10.1109/
retrieving soil moisture over bare soil. International IGARSS.1994.399501
Journal of Remote Sensing, 13, 2653–2668. Dubois, P., van Zyl, J., & Engman, T. (1995a). Measuring
doi:10.1080/01431169208904070 soil moisture with imaging radars. IEEE Transactions
Blumberg, D. G., Freilikher, V., Lyalko, I. V., Vulfson, L. D., Kotlyar, on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 33, 915–926.
A. L., Shevchenko, V. N., & Ryabokonenko, A. D. (2000). doi:10.1109/36.406677
Soil moisture (water-content) assessment by an airborne Dubois, P., vanZyl, J., & Engman, T. (1995b). Corrections to
scatterometer. Remote Sensing of Environment, 71, 309– “Measuring soil moisture with imaging radars”. IEEE
319. doi:10.1016/S0034-4257(99)00087-5 Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 33, 1340.
Boisvert, J. B., Gwyn, Q. H. J., Chanzy, A., Major, D. J., Brisco, doi:10.1109/TGRS.1995.477194
B., & Brown, R. J. (1997). Effect of surface soil moisture Engman, E. T. (1990). Progress in microwave remote sensing
gradients on modelling radar backscattering from bare of soil moisture. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing, 16,
fields. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 18, 153– 6–14.
170. doi:10.1080/014311697219330 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07038992.1990.11487620
Bryant, R., Moran, M. S., Thoma, D. P., Collins, C. D. H., Skirvin, Engman, E. T. (1991). Applications of microwave remote
S., Rahman, M., … Gonzalez-Dugo, M. P. (2007). Measuring sensing of soil moisture for water resources and
surface roughness height to parameterize radar agriculture. Remote Sensing of Environment, 35, 213–226.
backscatter models for retrieval of surface soil moisture. doi:10.1016/0034-4257(91)90013-V
IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 4, 137–141. Engman, E. T., & Gurney, R. J. (1991). Remote sensing in
doi:/10.1109/LGRS.2006.887146 hydrology. Remote Sensing Applications Series, ISBN 0
Callens, M., Verhoest, N. C. E., & Davidson, M. W. J. (2006). 412 24450. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-0407-1
Parameterization of tillage-induced single scale Entekhabi, D., Njoku, E. G., O’Neill, P. E., Kellogg, K. H., Crow, W.
soil roughness from 4-m profiles. IEEE Transactions T., Edelstein, W. N., … Van Zyl, J. (2010). The soil moisture
on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 44, 878–888. active passive (SMAP) mission. Proceedings of the IEEE,
doi:10.1109/TGRS.2005.860488 98, 704–716.
Chai, S. S., Walker, J. P., Makarynskyy, O., Kuhn, M., Veenendaal, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2010.2043918
B., & West, G. (2010). Use of soil moisture variability in ESA. (2014). Sentinel-1. Retrieved October 27, 2014, from
artificial neural network retrieval of soil moisture. Remote http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/
Sensing, 2, 166–190. Copernicus/Sentinel-1
Champion, I. (1996). Simple modelling of radar Fung, A. K. (1994). Microwave scattering and emission models
backscattering coefficient over a bare soil: Variation and their applications. Nordwood, MA: Artech House.
with incidence angle, frequency and polarization. Fung, A. K., & Chen, K. S. (1992). Dependence of the
International Journal of Remote Sensing, 17, 783–800. surface backscattering coefficients on roughness,
doi:10.1080/01431169608949045 frequency and polarization states. International
Champion, I., & Faivre, R. (1997). Sensitivity of the radar signal Journal of Remote Sensing, 13, 1663–1680.
to soil moisture: Variation with incidence angle, frequency, doi:10.1080/01431169208904219
and polarization. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Fung, A. K., Li, Z., & Chen, K. S. (1992). Backscattering from
Remote Sensing, 35, 781–783. doi:10.1109/36.582001 a randomly rough dielectric surface. IEEE Transactions
Chen, X. Z., Chen, S. S., Zhong, R. F., Su, Y. X., Liao, J. S., Li, D., on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 30, 356–369.
… Li, X. (2012). A semi-empirical inversion model for doi:10.1109/36.134085
assessing surface soil moisture using AMSR-E brightness Gharechelou, S., Tateishi, R., & Sumantyo, J. T. S. (2015).
temperatures. Journal of Hydrology, 456, 1–11. Interrelationship analysis of L-band backscattering
Page 18 of 21
intensity and soil dielectric constant for soil moisture Kornelsen, K. C., & Coulibaly, P. (2013). Advances in soil
retrieval using PALSAR data. Advances in Remote Sensing, moisture retrieval from synthetic aperture radar and
4, 15–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ars.2015.41002 hydrological applications. Journal of Hydrology, 476, 460–
Giacomelli, A., Bacchiega, U., Troch, P. A., & Mancini, M. (1995). 489. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.10.044
Evaluation of surface soil moisture distribution by means Laguardia, G., & Niemeyer, S. (2008). On the comparison
of SAR remote sensing techniques and conceptual between the LISFLOOD modelled and the ERS/SCAT
hydrological modelling. Journal of Hydrology, 166, 445– derived soil moisture estimates. Hydrology and Earth
459. doi:10.1016/0022-1694(94)05100-C System Sciences, 12, 1339–1351.
Gohill, B. S. (1999, May 19–22). First science workshop http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/hess-12-1339-2008
proceedings of Megha-Tropiques (pp. 20.1–20.15). Lakhankar, T., Ghedira, H., & Khanbilvardi, R. (2006, May 1–5).
Bangalore: ISRO. Neural network and fuzzy logic for an improved soil
Gorrab, A., Zribi, M., Baghdadi, N., Lili-Chabaane, Z., & moisture estimation. In ASPRS 2006 Annual Conference
Mougenot, B. (2014). Multi-frequency analysis of Reno. Nevada.
soil moisture vertical heterogeneity effect on radar Le Toan, T., Davidson, M., Mattia, F., Borderies, P., Chenerie,
backscatter. In Advanced Technologies for Signal and I., Manninen, T., & Borgeaud, M. (1999). Improved
Image Processing (ATSIP), 2014 1st International observation and modeling of bare surfaces for soil
Conference (pp. 379–384). 1653 IEEE. moisture retrieval. Earth Observation Quarterly, 62, 20–24.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ATSIP.2014.6834640 Levine, D. M., & Karam, M. A. (1996). Dependence of
Gupta, V. K., & Jangid, R. A. (2011a). Microwave response of attenuation in a vegetation canopy on frequency and
rough surfaces with auto-correlation functions, RMS plant water content. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and
heights and correlation lengths using active remote Remote Sensing, 34, 1090–1096. doi:10.1109/36.536525
sensing. Indian Journal of Radio and Space Physics, 40, Li, Y. Y., Zhao, K., Ren, J. H., Ding, Y. L., & Wu, L. L. (2014).
137–146. Analysis of the dielectric constant of saline-alkali soils
Gupta, V. K., & Jangid, R. A. (2011b). The effect of bulk density and the effect on radar backscattering coefficient: A case
on emission behavior of soil at microwave frequencies. study of soda alkaline saline soils in Western Jilin Province
International Journal of Microwave Science and using RADARSAT-2 data. The Scientific World Journal,
Technology, 2011, 1–6. doi:10.1155/2011/160129 2014, 1–14. doi:10.1155/2014/56301
Haider, S. S., Said, S., Kothyari, U. C., & Arora, M. K. (2004). Soil Liu, Y. Y., Parinussa, R. M., Dorigo, W. A., De Jeu, R. A. M.,
moisture estimation using ERS 2 SAR data: A case study in Wagner, W., van Dijk, A. I. J. M., … Evans, J. P. (2011).
the Solani River catchment. Hydrological Sciences Journal, Developing an improved soil moisture dataset by blending
49, 323–334. doi:10.1623/hysj.49.2.323.34832 passive and active microwave satellite-based retrievals.
Hallikainen, M. T., Ulaby, F. T., Dobson, M. C., El-rayes, M. A., & Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 15, 425–436.
Wu, L. K. (1985). Microwave dielectric behavior of wet soil- doi:10.5194/hess-15-425-2011
Part 1: Empirical models and experimental observations. Magagi, R. D., & Kerr, Y. H. (1997). Retrieval of soil moisture
IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 23, and vegetation characteristics by use of ERS-1
25–34. doi:10.1109/TGRS.1985.289497 wind scatterometer over arid and semi-arid areas.
Hirosawa, H., Komiyama, S., & Matsuzaka, Y. (1978). Journal of Hydrology, 188–189, 361–384. doi:10.1016/
Cross-polarized radar backscatter from moist S0022-1694(96)03166-6
soil. Remote Sensing of Environment, 7, 211–217. Mancini, M., Hoeben, R., & Troch, P. A. (1999). Multifrequency
doi:10.1016/0034-4257(78)90032-9 radar observations of bare surface soil moisture content:
Hofer, R., & Njoku, E. G. (1981). Regression techniques for A laboratory experiment. Water Resources Research, 35,
oceanographic parameter retrieval using space-borne 1827–1838. doi:10.1029/1999WR900033
microwave radiometry. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience Mattia, F., Le Toan, T., Souyris, J. C., De Carolis, G., Floury, N.,
and Remote Sensing, 19, 178–189. Posa, F., & Pasquariello, G. (1997). The effect of surface
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.1981.350370 roughness on multifrequency polarimetric SAR data.
Holah, N., Baghdadi, N., Zribi, M., Bruand, A., & King, C. (2005). IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 35,
Potential of ASAR/ENVISAT for the characterization of 915–926.
soil surface parameters over bare agricultural fields. Mattikalli, N. M., Engman, E. T., Jackson, T. J., & Ahuja, L. R.
Remote Sensing of Environment, 96, 78–86. doi:10.1016/j. (1998). Microwave remote sensing of temporal variations
rse.2005.01.008 of brightness temperature and near-surface soil water
Jackson, T. J., & Schmugge, T. J. (1989). Passive microwave content during a watershed-scale field experiment,
remote-sensing system for soil moisture: Some and its application to the estimation of soil physical
supporting research. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and properties. Water Resources Research, 34, 2289–2299.
Remote Sensing, 27, 225–235. doi:10.1109/36.20301 Mironov, V. L., Dobson, M. C., Kaupp, V. H., Komarov, S. A., &
Jackson, T. J., & Schmugge, T. J. (1991). Vegetation Kleshchenko, V. N. (2002). Generalized refractive mixing
effects on the microwave emission of soils. dielectric model for moist soils. IEEE International
Remote Sensing of Environment, 36, 203–212. Geoscience and Remotes Sensing Symposium, 4, 3556–
doi:10.1016/0034-4257(91)90057-D 3558. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/IGARSS.2002.1027247
Jagdhuber, T., Hajnsek, I., Bronstert, A., & Papathanassiou, K. Mironov, V. L., Dobson, M. C., Kaupp, V. H., Komarov, S. A., &
P. (2013). Soil moisture estimation under low vegetation Kleshchenko, V. N. (2004). Generalized refractive mixing
cover using a multi-angular polarimetric decomposition. dielectric model for moist soils. IEEE Transactions on
IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 51, Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 42, 773–785.
2201–2215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2012.2209433 http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2003.823288
Jin, Y. Q., & Wang, Y. (2000). A novel genetic algorithm to Moran, M. S., Peters-Lidard, C. D., Watts, J. M., & McElroy, S.
retrieve surface roughness and wetness from angular (2004). Estimating soil moisture at the watershed scale
back-scattering. In Proceedings of IEEE, IGARSS. with satellite-based radar and land surface models.
Kong, X., & Dorling, S. R. (2008). Near‐surface soil Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing, 30, 805–826.
moisture retrieval from ASAR wide swath imagery http://dx.doi.org/10.5589/m04-043
using a principal component analysis. International Neusch, T., & Sties, M. (1999). Application of the Dubois-model
Journal of Remote Sensing, 29, 2925–2942. using experimental synthetic aperture radar data for the
doi:10.1080/01431160701442088 determination of soil moisture and surface roughness.
Page 19 of 21
ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 54, SAR data. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing,
273–278. doi:10.1016/S0924-2716(99)00019-2 41, 865–872. doi:10.1007/s12524-013-0274-3
Njoku, E. G. (1999). AMSR land surface parameters. Pasadena, Rice, S. O. (1951). Reflection of electromagnetic waves
CA: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of from slightly rough surfaces. Communications on Pure
Technology. and Applied Mathematics, 4, 351–378. doi:10.1002/
Njoku, E. G., & Li Li, L. (1999). Retrieval of land surface cpa.3160040206
parameters using passive microwave measurements at Sanli, F. B., Kurucu, Y., Esetlili, M. T., & Abdikan, S. (2008).
6-18 GHz. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Soil moisture estimation from RADARSAT -1, ASAR and
Sensing, 37, 79–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/36.739125 PALSAR data in agricultural fields of Menemen plane of
Oh, Y. (2004). Quantitative retrieval of soil moisture content western Turkey. In Proceedings of Commission VII ISPRS
and surface roughness from multipolarized radar (International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote
observations of bare soil surfaces. IEEE Transactions Sensing) Congress (pp. 75–82). Beijing.
on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 42, 596–601. Satalino, G., Mattia, F., Pasquariello, G., & Dente, L. (2005). Soil
doi:10.1109/TGRS.2003.821065 moisture retrieval from ASAR measurements over natural
Oh, Y., & Kay, Y. (1998). Condition for precise measurement of surfaces with a large roughness variability (pp. 396–399).
soil surface roughness. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience In Procedings of IEEE, IGARSS.
and Remote Sensing, 36, 691–695. doi:10.1109/36.662751 Schmugge, T. (1985). Remote sensing of soil moisture:
Oh, Y., Sarabandi, K., & Ulaby, F. T. (1992). An empirical model Hydrology forecasting. Chichester.
and an inversion technique for radar scattering from bare Schmugge, T. J., Jackson, T. J., & McKim, H. L. (1980). Survey of
soil surfaces. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote methods for soil moisture determination. Water Resources
Sensing, 30, 370–381. doi:10.1109/36.134086 Research, 16, 961–979. doi:10.1029/WR016i006p00961
Oh, Y., Sarabandi, K., & Ulaby, F. T. (1993). An empirical Seneviratne, S. I., Corti, T., Davin, E. L., Hirschi, M., Jaeger, E.
model for phase difference statistics of rough B., Lehner, I., … Teuling, A. J. (2010). Investigating soil
surfaces. Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, moisture–climate interactions in a changing climate: A
1993. IGARSS ‘93. Better Understanding of Earth review. Earth-Science Reviews, 99, 125–161.
Environment., International, 3, 1003–1005. doi:10.1109/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2010.02.004
IGARSS.1993.322639 Sengupta, D. L., & Leipa, V. V. (2006). Frequency band
Oh, Y., Sarabandi, K., & Ulaby, F. T. (1994). An inversion designation: Appendix B. Applied Electromagnetics
algorithm for retrieving soil moisture and surface Compatability, 467–472.
roughness from polarimetric radar observation. Shi, J., Du, Y., Du, J., Jiang, L., Chai, L., Mao, K., … Wang, Y.
Proceedings IGARSS’94, Pasadena (IEEE catalog No. (2012). Progresses on microwave remote sensing of land
94CH3378-7, III, pp. 1582–1584). New York, NY: IEEE. surface parameters. Science China Earth Sciences, 55,
Oh, Y., Sarabandi, K., & Ulaby, F. T. (2002). Semi-empirical 1052–1078. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11430-012-4444-x
model of the ensemble averaged differential Mueller Sikdar, M., & Cumming, I. (2004). A modified empirical model
matrix for microwave backscattering from bare soil for soil moisture estimation in vegetated areas using SAR
surfaces. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote data. Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, 2004.
Sensing, 40, 1348–1355. doi:10.1109/TGRS.2002.800232 IGARSS’04. Proceedings. 2004 IEEE International, 2, 803–
Oza, S. R., Singh, R. R., Dadhwal, V. K., & Desai, P. S. (2006). 806. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/IGARSS.2004.1368526
Large area soil moisture estimation and mapping using Singh, D., & Kathpalia, A. (2007). An efficient modeling with ga
space-borne multi-frequency passive microwave data. approach to retrieve soil texture, moisture and roughness
Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 34, 343– from Ers-2 SAR data. Progress In Electromagnetics
350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02990919 Research, 77, 121–136. doi:10.2528/PIER07071803
Paloscia, S., Pampaloni, P., Pettinato, S., & Santi, E. (2008). A Singh, R. P., Mishra, D. R., Sahoo, A. K., & Dey, S. (2005).
comparison of algorithms for retrieving soil moisture from Spatial and temporal variability of soil moisture
ENVISAT/ASAR images. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience over India using IRS P4 MSMR data. International
and Remote Sensing, 46, 3274–3284. Journal of Remote Sensing, 26, 2241–2247.
Peplinski, N. R., Ulaby, F. T., & Dobson, M. C. (1995a). Dielectric doi:10.1080/01431160500043723
properties of soils in the 0.3-1.3 GHz range. IEEE Singh, R. P., Oza, S. R., Chaudhari, K. N., & Dadhwal, V. K. (2005).
Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 33, Spatial and temporal patterns of surface soil moisture
803–807. doi:10.1109/36.387598 over India estimated using surface wetness index from
Peplinski, N. R., Ulaby, F. T., & Dobson, M. C. (1995b). Corrections SSM/I microwave radiometer. International Journal of
to “Dielectric properties of soils in the 0.3-1.3-GHz range”. Remote Sensing, 26, 1269–1276. doi:10.1080/014311604
IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 33, 12331330284
1340. doi:10.1109/TGRS.1995.477193 Song, K., Zhou, X., & Fan, Y. (2010). Retrieval of soil moisture
Petropoulos, G. P., Ireland, G., & Barrett, B. (in press). Surface content from microwave backscattering using a modified
soil moisture retrievals from remote sensing: Current IEM model. Progress In Electromagnetics Research B, 26,
status, products and future trends. Physics and Chemistry 383–399. doi:10.2528/PIERB10072905
of the Earth. Srivastava, H. S., Patel, P., Manchanda, M. L., & Adiga, S. (2003).
Prakash, R., Singh, D., & Pathak, N. P. (2012). A fusion approach Use of multiincidence angle RADARSAT-1 SAR data to
to retrieve soil moisture with SAR and optical data. IEEE incorporate the effect of surface roughness in soil moisture
Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations estimation. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote
and Remote Sensing, 5, 196–206. doi:10.1109/ Sensing, 41, 1638–1640. doi:10.1109/TGRS.2003.813356
JSTARS.2011.2169236 Srivastava, H. S., Patel, P., & Navalgund, R. R. (2006, November
Pulliainen, J. T., Manninen, T., & Hallikainen, M. T. (1998). 13–17). How far SAR has fulfilled its expectation for
Application of ERS-1 wind scatterometer data to soil soil moisture retrieval? (SPIE Digital Library, 6410 Paper
frost and soil moisture monitoring in boreal forest zone. No. 64100, pp. 1–12). In Microwave Remote Sensing of
IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 36, Atmosphere and Environment-II, AE107, Asia Pacific
849–863. doi:10.1109/36.673678 Remote Sensing Symposium. Goa.
Rao, S. S., Dinesh, S. K., Das, N., Nagaraju, M. S. S., Venugopal, Srivastava, H. S., Patel, P., Sharma, Y., & Navalgund, R. R.
M. V., Rajanar, P., … Sharma, J. R. (2013). Modified Dubois (2009). Large-area soil moisture estimation using multi-
model for estimating soil moisture with dual polarized incidence-angle RADARSAT-1 SAR data. IEEE Transactions
Page 20 of 21
on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 47, 2528–2535. Wagner, W., Lemoine, G., & Rott, H. (1999). A method for
doi:10.1109/TGRS.2009.2018448 estimating soil moisture from ERS scatterometer and
Srivastava, S. K., Yograjan, N., Jayaraman, V., Rao, P. P. N., & soil data. Remote Sensing of Environment, 70, 191–207.
Chandrasekhar, M. G. (1997). On the relationship between doi:10.1016/S0034-4257(99)00036-X
ERS-1 SAR/backscatter and surface/sub-surface soil Wagner, W., Noll, J., Borgeaud, M., & Rott, H. (1999). Monitoring
moisture variations in vertisols. Acra Astronaurica, 40, soil moisture over the Canadian Prairies with the ERS
693–699. doi:10.1016/S0094-5765(97)00125-2 scatterometer. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and
Topp, G. C., Davis, J. L., & Annan, A. P. (1980). Electromagnetic Remote Sensing, 37, 206–216. doi:10.1109/36.739155
determination of soil water content: Measurements in Wang, J. R., & Schmugge, T. J. (1980). An empirical model for
coaxial transmission lines. Water Resources Research, 16, the complex dielectric permittivity of soils as a function
574–582. doi:10.1029/WR016i003p00574 of water content. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience
Tsang, L., Kong, J. A., & Shin, R. T. (1985). Theory of microwave and Remote Sensing, 18, 288–295. doi:10.1109/
remote sensing (613 p.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. TGRS.1980.350304
Ulaby, F. T., & Batlivala, P. P. (1976). Optimum radar Wang, L., & Qu, J. J. (2009). Satellite remote sensing
parameters for mapping soil moisture. IEEE Transactions applications for surface soil moisture monitoring: A
on Geoscience Electronics, 14, 81–93. doi:10.1109/ review. Frontiers of Earth Science in China, 3, 237–247.
TGE.1976.294414 doi:10.1007/s11707-009-0023-7
Ulaby, F. T., Batlivala, P. P., & Dobson, M. C. (1978). Microwave Western, A. W., Zhou, S. L., Grayson, R. B., McMahon, T. A.,
backscatter dependence on surface roughness, Blöschl, G., & Wilson, D. J. (2004). Spatial correlation of
soil moisture, and soil texture: Part I-bare soil. IEEE soil moisture in small catchments and its relationship
Transactions on Geoscience Electronics, 16, 286–295. to dominant spatial hydrological processes.
doi:10.1109/TGE.1978.294586 Journal of Hydrology, 286, 113–134. doi:10.1016/j.
Ulaby, F. T., & El-rayes, M. A. (1987). Microwave dielectric jhydrol.2003.09.014
spectrum of vegetation - Part II: Dual-dispersion model. Wigneron, J. P., Calvet, J. P., Pellarin, T., Van de Griend, A. A.,
IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 25, Berger, M., & Ferrazzoli, P. (2003). Retrieving near-surface
550–557. doi:10.1109/TGRS.1987.289833 soil moisture from microwave radiometric observations:
Ulaby, F. T., Dubois, P. C., & van Zyl, J. (1996). Radar mapping of current status and future plans. Remote Sensing of
surface soil moisture. Journal of Hydrology, 184, 57–84. Environment, 85, 489–506.
doi:10.1016/0022-1694(95)02968-0 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0034-4257(03)00051-8
Ulaby, F. T., Moore, R. K., & Fung, A. K. (1982). Microwave remote Winebrenner, D., & Ishimaru, A. (1985). Investigation of a
sensing—Active and passive (Vols. 2–3). Addison Wesley. surface field phase perturbation technique for scattering
Ulaby, F. T., Moore, R. K., & Fung, A. K. (1986). Microwave from rough surfaces. Radio Science, 20, 161–170.
remote sensing: Active and passive (Vol. 3). Reading, MA: doi:10.1029/RS020i002p00161
Addison-Wesley. Zhao, K. G., Shi, J. C., Zhang, L. X., Jiang, L. M., Zhang, Z. J.,
Vereecken, H., Huisman, J. A., Pachepsky, Y., Montzka, C., van Qin, J., … Hu, J. C. (2003). Retrieval of bare soil surface
der Kruk, J., Bogena, H., … Vanderborght, J. (2014). On the parameters from simulated data using neural networks
spatio-temporal dynamics of soil moisture at the field combined with IEM (pp. 3881–3883). Procedings of IEEE,
scale. Journal of Hydrology, 516, 76–96. IGARSS.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.11.061 Zhao, W., & Li, Z. L. (2013). Sensitivity study of soil moisture on
Wagner, W. (1998). Soil moisture retrieval from ERS the temporal evolution of surface temperature over bare
Scatterometer data (Dissertation). Vienna University of surfaces. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 34,
Technology, Vienna. Publ. EUR 18670 EN, Office of Official 3314–3331.
Publications, Europian Community. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2012.716532
Wagner, W., Blöschl, G., Pampaloni, P., Calvet, J.-C., Bizzarri, B., Zribi, M., Baghdadi, N., Holah, N., & Fafin, O. (2005). New
Wigneron, J.-P., & Kerr, Y. (2007). Operational readiness of methodology for soil surface moisture estimation and
microwave remote sensing of soil moisture for hydrologic its application to ENVISAT-ASAR multi incidence data
applications. Nordic Hydrology, 38(1), 1–20. doi:10.2166/ inversion. Remote Sensing of Environment, 96, 485–496.
nh.2007.029 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2005.04.005
Wagner, W., Lemoine, G., Borgeaud, M., & Rott, H. (1999). A Zribi, M., & Dechambre, M. (2002). A new empirical model
study of vegetation cover effects on ERS Scatterometer to retrieve soil moisture and roughness from C-band
data. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote radar data. Remote Sensing of Environment, 84, 42–52.
Sensing, 37, 338–998. doi:10.1109/36.752212 doi:10.1016/S0034-4257(02)00069-X
© 2016 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
You are free to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.
You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions
You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Page 21 of 21

Present Status of Soil Moisture Estimation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Present Status of Soil Moisture Estimation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Present Status of Soil Moisture Estimation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cogent Geoscience

ISSN: (Print) 2331-2041 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/oage20

Present status of soil moisture estimation by

Kousik Dashttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-7914-2276 & Prabir Kumar

To cite this article: Kousik Dashttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-7914-2276 & Prabir Kumar Paulhttps://

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23312041.2015.1084669

© 2015 The Author(s). This open access

Published online: 08 Oct 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 7750

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 28 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Present status of soil moisture estimation by

Cogent Geoscience (2015), 1: 1084669

GEOINFORMATICS | REVIEW ARTICLE

Keywords: soil moisture; radar; SAR; microwave; remote sensing

ABOUT THE AUTHOR PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT

2. Microwave remote sensing

2.1. Active microwave remote sensing

2.2. Passive microwave remote sensing

3. Factors influencing microwave remote sensing

3.1. Dielectric constant (ε)

3.2. Backscattering coefficient (σ0)

3.3. Surface roughness

2.4. Bulk density

3.5. Soil texture

3.6. Vegetation cover

3.7. Incident angle (θ)

Figure 1. Behaviour of three

Note: The shorter microwave

Table 2. Microwave bands and frequencies (Sengupta & Liepa, 2006)

4. Models for retrieval of backscattering coefficient and soil moisture

q = 0.1 + sin 1.3𝜃 1 − e−0.9 (k.r.m.s) (9)

The general formula to retrieve backscattering coefficient is expressed in Equation (12).

𝜃 0.35Mv −0.65 −0.4 0

4.2. Physical model for active imaging microwave data

4.3. Topp model

4.4. Relative (ms) and profile (W(t)) soil moisture content

W(t) = Wmin + SWI(t).(Wmax − Wmin ) (21)

4.5. Passive radiometric models

4.5.1. Radiative transfer model

Substituting Ts ≅ Tc = Te in Equation (22), we obtain Equation (23).

Figure 2. Model representation

Tae ≈ Tas − 𝛿Ta (25)

𝜏a = (t0 + av qv + a1 q1 )∕cos𝜃 (26)

𝜏c = bwe ∕cos𝜃 (27)

4.5.2. Change detection algorithm

4.5.3. Optimization of models

Funding Aqil, S., & Schmitt, D. R. (2010, May 10-14). Dielectric

You might also like