Analyzing Spatio-Temporal Factors to Estimate the Response Time between SMOS and In-Situ Soil Moisture at Different Depths
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Data and Methods
2.1. Time Series Datasets
2.1.1. SMOS Soil Moisture
2.1.2. REMEDHUS Soil Moisture and Climate Data
2.2. DTW Technique
2.2.1. Fundamentals of DTW
- (i)
- boundary condition:
- (ii)
- monotonicity condition:
- (iii)
- step-size condition (simple version): .
- (i)
- Computation of the local distance matrix
- (ii)
- Building the accumulated cost matrix
- (iii)
- Retrieval of the optimal war** path
2.2.2. Customization of DTW
Maximum Allowed Time Lag
Adjustment of Step-Size Condition
Determination of Onsets of Pronounced Precipitation Events
2.3. Comparison of SMOS and In-Situ SM
3. Results
3.1. Temporal Variability of Climate Factors
3.2. Spatial Heterogeneity of Land Coverage
3.3. Interim Results of DTW and Customization
3.4. Final Results of the Evolution of Time Lag
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Basara, J.B.; Crawford, K.C. Linear relationships between root-zone soil moisture and atmospheric processes in the planetary boundary layer. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2002, 107, ACL 10-1–ACL 10-18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fan, J.; McConkey, B.; Wang, H.; Janzen, H. Root distribution by depth for temperate agricultural crops. Field Crop Res. 2016, 189, 68–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jiménez-Martínez, J.; Skaggs, T.; Van Genuchten, M.T.; Candela, L. A root zone modelling approach to estimating groundwater recharge from irrigated areas. J. Hydrol. 2009, 367, 138–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, Y.; Khan, S.; Ma, X. Climate change impacts on crop yield, crop water productivity and food security—A review. Prog. Nat. Sci. 2009, 19, 1665–1674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Batool, A.; Cheng, Z.G.; Akram, N.A.; Lv, G.C.; **. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Bei**g, China, 23–27 August 2012; pp. 262–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Berndt, D.J.; Clifford, J. Using Dynamic Time War** to Find Patterns in Time Series; KDD Workshop: Seattle, WA, USA, 1994; Volume 10, pp. 359–370. [Google Scholar]
- Sakoe, H.; Chiba, S. Dynamic programming algorithm optimization for spoken word recognition. IEEE Trans. Acoust. Speech Signal Process. 1978, 26, 43–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Maus, V.; Câmara, G.; Cartaxo, R.; Sanchez, A.; Ramos, F.M.; de Queiroz, G.R. A time-weighted dynamic time war** method for land-use and land-cover map**. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 2016, 9, 3729–3739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Belgiu, M.; Csillik, O. Sentinel-2 cropland map** using pixel-based and object-based time-weighted dynamic time war** analysis. Remote Sens. Environ. 2018, 204, 509–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Csillik, O.; Belgiu, M.; Asner, G.P.; Kelly, M. Object-based time-constrained dynamic time war** classification of crops using Sentinel-2. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 1257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lee, C.S.; Sohn, E.; Park, J.D.; Jang, J.D. Estimation of soil moisture using deep learning based on satellite data: A case study of South Korea. GISci. Remote Sens. 2019, 56, 43–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Portal, G.; Vall-Llossera, M.; Piles, M.; Camps, A.; Chaparro, D.; Pablos, M.; Rossato, L. A spatially consistent downscaling approach for SMOS using an adaptive moving window. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 2018, 11, 1883–1894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Masialeti, I.; Egbert, S.; Wardlow, B.D. A comparative analysis of phenological curves for major crops in Kansas. GISci. Remote Sens. 2010, 47, 241–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atchley, A.L.; Maxwell, R.M. Influences of subsurface heterogeneity and vegetation cover on soil moisture, surface temperature and evapotranspiration at hillslope scales. Hydrogeol. J. 2011, 19, 289–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sentinel Ltd. Modified Copernicus Sentinel Data 2020/Sentinel Hub. 2020. Available online: https://sentinel-hub.com (accessed on 22 June 2020).
- Rodriguez-Fernandez, N.; Al Bitar, A.; Colliander, A.; Zhao, T. Soil Moisture Remote Sensing across Scales. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kerr, Y.H.; Waldteufel, P.; Wigneron, J.P.; Delwart, S.; Cabot, F.; Boutin, J.; Escorihuela, M.J.; Font, J.; Reul, N.; Gruhier, C.; et al. The SMOS mission: New tool for monitoring key elements ofthe global water cycle. Proc. IEEE 2010, 98, 666–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Font, J.; Camps, A.; Borges, A.; Martín-Neira, M.; Boutin, J.; Reul, N.; Kerr, Y.H.; Hahne, A.; Mecklenburg, S. SMOS: The challenging sea surface salinity measurement from space. Proc. IEEE 2009, 98, 649–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Corbella, I.; Torres, F.; Camps, A.; Colliander, A.; Martín-Neira, M.; Ribó, S.; Rautiainen, K.; Duffo, N.; Vall-llossera, M. MIRAS end-to-end calibration: Application to SMOS L1 processor. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2005, 43, 1126–1134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kerr, Y.H.; Waldteufel, P.; Richaume, P.; Wigneron, J.P.; Ferrazzoli, P.; Mahmoodi, A.; Al Bitar, A.; Cabot, F.; Gruhier, C.; Juglea, S.E.; et al. The SMOS soil moisture retrieval algorithm. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2012, 50, 1384–1403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pablos, M.; Piles, M.; González-Haro, C. BEC SMOS Land Products Description. Available online: http://bec.icm.csic.es/doc/BEC-SMOS-0003-PD-Land.pdf (accessed on 15 September 2019).
- Piles, M.; Sánchez, N.; Vall-llossera, M.; Camps, A.; Martínez-Fernández, J.; Martínez, J.; González-Gambau, V. A downscaling approach for SMOS land observations: Evaluation of high-resolution soil moisture maps over the Iberian Peninsula. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 2014, 7, 3845–3857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Martín-Neira, M.; Oliva, R.; Corbella, I.; Torres, F.; Duffo, N.; Durán, I.; Kainulainen, J.; Closa, J.; Zurita, A.; Cabot, F.; et al. SMOS instrument performance and calibration after six years in orbit. Remote Sens. Environ. 2016, 180, 19–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- González-Zamora, Á.; Sanchez, N.; Gumuzzio, A.; Piles, M.; Olmedo, E.; Martínez-Fernández, J. Validation of SMOS L2 and L3 soil moisture products over the Duero Basin at different spatial scales. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2015, 40, 1183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Allen, R.G.; Pereira, L.S.; Raes, D.; Smith, M. Crop Evapotranspiration-Guidelines for Computing Crop Water Requirements-FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1998; Volume 300, p. D05109. [Google Scholar]
- Müller, M. Information Retrieval for Music and Motion; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
- Ainsworth, W. Speech Recognition by Machine Peter Peregrinus; IEE: London, UK, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Laguna, P.; Jané, R.; Caminal, P. Automatic detection of wave boundaries in multilead ECG signals: Validation with the CSE database. Comput. Biomed. Res. 1994, 27, 45–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zifan, A.; Saberi, S.; Moradi, M.H.; Towhidkhah, F. Automated ECG segmentation using piecewise derivative dynamic time war**. Int. J. Biol. Med Sci. 2006, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Houle, M.E.; Kriegel, H.P.; Kröger, P.; Schubert, E.; Zimek, A. Can shared-neighbor distances defeat the curse of dimensionality? In International Conference on Scientific and Statistical Database Management; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 482–500. [Google Scholar]
- Wagner, W.; Naeimi, V.; Scipal, K.; de Jeu, R.; Martínez-Fernández, J. Soil moisture from operational meteorological satellites. Hydrogeol. J. 2007, 15, 121–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez-Fernández, J.; González-Zamora, A.; Sánchez, N.; Gumuzzio, A. A soil water based index as a suitable agricultural drought indicator. J. Hydrol. 2015, 522, 265–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pietola, L.; Alakukku, L. Root growth dynamics and biomass input by Nordic annual field crops. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2005, 108, 135–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agrarian Technological Institute of Castilla and León (ITACyL): Maps of Soil Types. Available online: http://suelos.itacyl.es/ (accessed on 1 August 2020).
- Guddat, C.; Deger, J.; Marschall, K.; Zorn, W.; Götz, R. Guidelines for efficient and environmentally sustainable production of winter wheat. Thuring. Reg. Inst. Agric. 2015, 8, 6. [Google Scholar]
- Dorigo, W.; Gruber, A.; De Jeu, R.; Wagner, W.; Stacke, T.; Loew, A.; Albergel, C.; Brocca, L.; Chung, D.; Parinussa, R.; et al. Evaluation of the ESA CCI soil moisture product using ground-based observations. Remote Sens. Environ. 2015, 162, 380–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Entin, J.K.; Robock, A.; Vinnikov, K.Y.; Hollinger, S.E.; Liu, S.; Namkhai, A. Temporal and spatial scales of observed soil moisture variations in the extratropics. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2000, 105, 11865–11877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Lannoy, G.J.; Pauwels, V.R.; Houser, P.R.; Gish, T.; Verhoest, N.E. Representativeness of Point Soil Moisture Observations, Upscaling and Assimilation. In Symposium HS2004 at IUGG2007, Date: 2007/07/09-2007/07/13, Location: Perugia, Italy; IAHS-AISH Publication: Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK, 2007; Volume 313, p. 249. [Google Scholar]
- Monerris, A.; Vall-llossera, M.; Camps, A.; Sabia, R.; Villarino, R.; Cardona, M.; Alvarez, E.; Sosa, S. Soil moisture retrieval using L-band radiometry: Dependence on soil type and moisture profiles. In Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE MicroRad, SanJuan, Puerto Rico, 28 February–3 March 2006; pp. 171–175. [Google Scholar]
- Entekhabi, D.; Reichle, R.H.; Koster, R.D.; Crow, W.T. Performance metrics for soil moisture retrievals and application requirements. J. Hydrometeorol. 2010, 11, 832–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Station | Land Use | Soil Type | Depth | Sand | Silt | Clay | WP | FC |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[2016–2018] | [cm] | [%] | [%] | [%] | [m m] | [m m] | ||
Gleyic | 5 | 75.11 | 16.35 | 8.54 | 0.028 | 0.088 | ||
E10 | Vineyard | and | 25 | 73.74 | 15.71 | 10.55 | 0.047 | 0.108 |
albic luvisol | 50 | 66.79 | 4.96 | 28.25 | 0.099 | 0.193 | ||
Cambic arenosol | 5 | 82.25 | 6.44 | 11.31 | 0.040 | 0.125 | ||
L3 | Vineyard | and | 25 | 82.45 | 6.27 | 11.28 | 0.056 | 0.146 |
calcaric cambisol | 50 | 80.20 | 11.90 | 7.90 | 0.043 | 0.130 | ||
Fallow (2016), | Gleyic | 5 | 60.94 | 16.85 | 22.21 | 0.096 | 0.236 | |
J12 | winter cereals | and | 25 | 59.10 | 16.76 | 24.14 | 0.113 | 0.228 |
(2017/2018) | albic luvisol | 50 | 59.99 | 14.97 | 25.04 | 0.168 | 0.265 | |
Calcaric | 5 | 81.64 | 8.31 | 10.05 | 0.057 | 0.100 | ||
M5 | Winter cereals | and | 25 | 81.41 | 7.87 | 10.72 | 0.042 | 0.125 |
eutric cambisol | 50 | 84.75 | 5.37 | 9.88 | 0.043 | 0.071 |
SM Season | Period | Criterion | Prevailing Processes | SM Condition |
---|---|---|---|---|
Recharge | November– | PrecipitationPET; | Precipitation | SM storage increases |
Mid-February | initial plant growth | |||
Utilization | Mid-February– | PrecipitationPET; | Strong root-water uptake | SM decreases |
mid-June | main growing season | and evapotranspiration | due to consumption | |
Deficit | Mid-June– | Precipitation PET; | Evaporation at | Continuous drying; SM |
October | crops are harvested | maximum | at minimum in the end |
Station | Local Land Use | SMOS Land Use | Spatial Heterogeneity | Representativeness |
---|---|---|---|---|
NDVI Mean/StDev | NDVI Mean/StDev | (SMOS to In-Situ) | ||
E10 | Vineyard | Mixed land use | Homogeneous up to m, | Given; but station |
0.380.12 | 0.340.15 | then heterogeneous | bordering on cereals! | |
L3 | Vineyard | Mixed land use | Homogeneous up to ±100 m, | Not given |
0.170.04 | 0.280.12 | then heterogeneous | ||
J12 | Rainfed cereals | Rainfed cereals | Proportionally increasing | Conditionally given; |
0.310.05 | 0.450.19 | heterogeneity with resolution | variability is diverging | |
M5 | Rainfed cereals | Mixed land use | Heterogeneous | Given |
0.340.17 | 0.260.15 |
Station | Depth | Time Lag [Days] | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[cm] | Recharge | Utilization | Deficit | ||||
Mean | Maximum | Mean | Maximum | Mean | Maximum | ||
5 | 5 | 12 | 4 | 16 | 6 | 16 | |
E10 | 25 | 6 | 18 | 3 | 13 | 7 | 22 |
50 | 3 | 7 | 4 | 19 | 38 | 69 | |
5 | 7 | 24 | 7 | 22 | 11 | 34 | |
L3 | 25 | 4 | 19 | 5 | 18 | 8 | 25 |
50 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 13 | 23 | 45 | |
5 | 3 | 13 | 6 | 22 | 26 | 51 | |
J12 | 25 | 8 | 19 | 4 | 15 | 7 | 21 |
50 | 1 | 4 | 8 | 24 | 13 | 21 | |
5 | 6 | 22 | 6 | 27 | 13 | 27 | |
M5 | 25 | 8 | 24 | 9 | 25 | 23 | 43 |
50 | 7 | 19 | 11 | 30 | 38 | 72 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Herbert, C.; Pablos, M.; Vall-llossera, M.; Camps, A.; Martínez-Fernández, J. Analyzing Spatio-Temporal Factors to Estimate the Response Time between SMOS and In-Situ Soil Moisture at Different Depths. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 2614. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12162614
Herbert C, Pablos M, Vall-llossera M, Camps A, Martínez-Fernández J. Analyzing Spatio-Temporal Factors to Estimate the Response Time between SMOS and In-Situ Soil Moisture at Different Depths. Remote Sensing. 2020; 12(16):2614. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12162614
Chicago/Turabian StyleHerbert, Christoph, Miriam Pablos, Mercè Vall-llossera, Adriano Camps, and José Martínez-Fernández. 2020. "Analyzing Spatio-Temporal Factors to Estimate the Response Time between SMOS and In-Situ Soil Moisture at Different Depths" Remote Sensing 12, no. 16: 2614. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12162614