the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Satellite-Based Extension of the Soil Freezing Curve Paradigm: Detecting Extrinsic Freeze/Thaw Thresholds with SMAP in Mid-Latitudinal Agricultural Fields
Abstract. We present a novel method for surface freeze/thaw (F/T) classification based on L-band brightness temperature (TB), as measured by the Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP) mission, combined with thermodynamic temperature estimates, whether in situ or derived from near real-time model output. Variations in the cryosphere have significant, lasting impacts on physical, biological, and social systems, and act as sensitive indicators of climate change. Remote sensing at microwave frequencies is uniquely suited for monitoring the cryosphere’s spatial and temporal dynamics. Indeed, SMAP was tasked with providing a daily classification of the surface F/T state as one of two primary mission goals. Although surface F/T events are extrinsically driven phenomena, most existing classification algorithms rely on intrinsic thresholds – those derived from single-variable observables – that may not accurately reflect in situ conditions. Meanwhile, soil physicists have long used a robust framework to study the relationship between unfrozen water content and sub-freezing temperature, known as the soil freezing characteristic curve (SFC). These curves, and to a lesser extent their soil thawing characteristic curve (STC) branches, have been well studied in laboratory settings using a variety of instruments and methods. These concepts have not been extended to remote sensing (RS) until now.
The remotely sensed surface freezing characteristic curves (SurFCs) introduced here are the satellite-pixel-scale counterpart to SFCs. SurFCs are constructed with SMAP TB measurements, which are inversely correlated with water content, along with thermodynamic temperature records at two mid-latitude sites. We used in situ temperature data from SMAP core validation sites near Kenaston, Saskatchewan and Carman, Manitoba, covering a combined total of nine years, alongside modelled temperature estimates from the Goddard Earth Observing System Model, Version 5 Forward Processing product (GEOS-5 FP). SurFCs constructed with in situ soil temperatures showed a structure like that of SFCs, including analogue thawing branches, identified as surface thawing characteristic curves (SurTCs). Lastly, we show SurTCs can serve as a tool for identifying extrinsic thresholds – transition points linked to both the system’s physical state and its external drivers – enhancing the realism and operational accuracy of satellite-based F/T classification. Overall, the proposed TBHmin approach improved detection accuracy by 39.4 % compared to the widely used Normalized Polarization Ratio (NPR) method.
This analysis challenges the prevailing assumption that 0.15 °C is a universal F/T threshold. Instead, we argue that the threshold should be determined from measurements of the system’s physical response and environmental forcing (SurFC/SurTC). Although useful, a 0.15 °C classifier is not uniformly applicable across freeze–thaw phenomena or measurement methods.
- Preprint
(26757 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3630', Anonymous Referee #1, 15 Jan 2026
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Renato Pardo Lara, 11 Jun 2026
We thank the editor, referees, and community commenter for their careful and constructive engagement with this manuscript, which has materially strengthened the work. We are grateful to the handling editor for comments on readability and scope; to Referee #1 for their close reading and detailed suggestions; to Dr. Jacobs (Referee #2) for her thorough and incisive review, the comments on threshold uncertainty prompted a quantitative treatment that has improved the analysis; and to Dr. Glaser for his constructive community comment on conductivity hysteresis near the freeze–thaw transition. Our point-by-point responses to all comments are provided in the attached supplement.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Renato Pardo Lara, 11 Jun 2026
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3630: Sub-freezing Electrical Conductivity Hysteresis', Dan R. Glaser, 11 Feb 2026
Dear Authors,
I appreciated this preprint, and I found the SurFC/SurTC framework especially compelling for relating thermodynamic temperature to remotely sensed L-band brightness temperatures. The approach aligns with what we have been observing in near-surface electrical measurements of frozen soils, particularly regarding the physical controls on low-temperature dielectric behavior.
One aspect that may be relevant to your discussion is the growing evidence that complex electrical conductivity exhibits strong hysteresis at sub-freezing temperatures, even when measured at the same thermodynamic temperature. Laboratory studies have shown that conductivity during freezing and thawing can differ by more than an order of magnitude because of changes in unfrozen water content, pore-ice configuration, and interfacial polarization processes. These effects are also soil-type-dependent, with frost-susceptible silts and clays exhibiting the largest hysteretic response due to their finer pore structures and greater bound-water fractions. Relevant studies include:
- Garcia & Glaser (2025), Sub-freezing Complex Electrical Conductivity Hysteresis in Frost-Susceptible Soils, Geophysical Journal International, https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggaf335
- Liu et al. (2022), Experimental and Numerical Analysis of Soil Electrical Resistivity Under Subfreezing Conditions, Journal of Applied Geophysics, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2022.104671
Field observations also show that this hysteresis persists at the landscape scale, with clear depth dependence across the seasonal transition on the Arctic Coastal Plain:
- Glaser, Garcia, Sullivan & Versteeg (2025), Electrical Hysteresis in Frozen Soils: Laboratory Insights and Field Observations from the Arctic Coastal Plain, AGU Fall Meeting.
Because passive microwave retrievals respond to the soil’s bulk dielectric properties, and because the real part of the dielectric constant at L-band is influenced by both liquid water/ice content and low-frequency conduction pathways, hysteretic conductivity behavior may help explain ambiguity in fixed freeze–thaw thresholds such as the commonly used 0.15 °C discriminator. The data-driven SurTC-based threshold introduced here provides an interesting pathway for capturing this more complex behavior at the satellite footprint scale.
If helpful, I would be happy to share the AGU poster summarizing the field-scale observations; please feel free to contact me if you would like a copy.
— Dan R. Glaser, Near-Surface Geophysics Group, USACE-ERDC Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL)
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3630-CC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on CC1: Sub-freezing Electrical Conductivity Hysteresis', Renato Pardo Lara, 16 Feb 2026
Thank you for the thoughtful comment and references. The hysteresis observed in near-surface electrical properties at the same thermodynamic temperature strengthens the physical case for threshold ambiguity and supports our motivation for moving beyond fixed temperature discriminators. We plan to cite Garcia & Glaser (2025) and Liu et al. (2022) in future revisions, and we appreciate the connection to field-scale Arctic observations as well.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3630-AC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Renato Pardo Lara, 11 Jun 2026
We thank the editor, referees, and community commenter for their careful and constructive engagement with this manuscript, which has materially strengthened the work. We are grateful to the handling editor for comments on readability and scope; to Referee #1 for their close reading and detailed suggestions; to Dr. Jacobs (Referee #2) for her thorough and incisive review, the comments on threshold uncertainty prompted a quantitative treatment that has improved the analysis; and to Dr. Glaser for his constructive community comment on conductivity hysteresis near the freeze–thaw transition. Our point-by-point responses to all comments are provided in the attached supplement.
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3630', Jennifer Jacobs, 16 Mar 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-3630/egusphere-2025-3630-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Renato Pardo Lara, 11 Jun 2026
We thank the editor, referees, and community commenter for their careful and constructive engagement with this manuscript, which has materially strengthened the work. We are grateful to the handling editor for comments on readability and scope; to Referee #1 for their close reading and detailed suggestions; to Dr. Jacobs (Referee #2) for her thorough and incisive review, the comments on threshold uncertainty prompted a quantitative treatment that has improved the analysis; and to Dr. Glaser for his constructive community comment on conductivity hysteresis near the freeze–thaw transition. Our point-by-point responses to all comments are provided in the attached supplement.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Renato Pardo Lara, 11 Jun 2026
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3630', Anonymous Referee #1, 15 Jan 2026
Review „Satellite-Based Extension of the Soil Freezing Curve Paradigm: Detecting Extrinsic Freeze/Thaw Thresholds with SMAP in Mid-Latitudinal Agricultural Fields“
The authors present a well written and thoughtful study on a relevant issue. In my opinion this manuscript will contribute to the field and fits well into the Cryosphere journal. In the following, I listed some comments that, in my opinion, will strengthen the paper
General comments:
The paper is well grounded in literature regarding passive microwave remote sensing and laboratory studies, however it is lacking in some respects regarding active systems. While some methodological aspects may be different, similar ideas regarding freeze/thaw retrieval have been explored with active systems (e.g. ASCAT, Sentinel-1) which should be touched on in the introduction and discussion. I will list a couple of suggestions of papers to cite at the end, but the authors should also do their own literature research in this direction.
Specific comments:
- Line 7: “. Although surface F/T events are extrinsically driven phenomena, most existing classification algorithms rely on intrinsic thresholds…”: you say something like this several times in the paper, and while its not wrong, it sounds somewhat confusing. Like you shouldn’t only use one data source because F/T depends on outside variables. Which wouldn’t be a problem if we would have a single data source that represents F/T accurately and is not influenced by any outside phenomena. Which we don’t which is why your approach works better, but maybe rephrase this a bit as it somewhat misses the core point.
- Introduction: same comments as for the discussion (see below).
- Maybe I missed it, but do you give any info on subgrid heterogeneity of your sites? Given the coarse grid of SMAP, what about small water bodies, different vegetation, e.g…. I can only see some information on the different soil texture (nice), more info would be good. Can you discuss your results in the context of subgrid heterogeneity?
- Section 2.4.1: similar ideas/a similar approach was explored in several publications using active sensors. Even though the data is different, the underlying idea is rather similar and should be mentioned in both the introduction as a basis and in the discussion and in the methods as a source as well.
- Figure 3 (and other similar figures): the style makes the figures hard to digest, in my opinion, the lines do not add to a better understanding and rather confuse the reader.
- Figure 3 + 5: colour scale is hidden and to subtle, took my three read throughs to notice that its not just one red and one blue. F/T being delineated in red and blue as is the date is very confusing. I feel these figures need an overall reformat.
- Table 2: “mean (SD)”, more intuitive (for me) would be mean +- SD, less prone to confusion maybe
- Table 2: the improvement is impressive, well done!
- Have you considered using ERA5 as a source of temperature data? If not why? Its been used (or its predecessors) in many FT applications.
- Discussion: As mentioned before, the fact that similar approaches have been explored by previous publications using active systems is completely neglected in the discussion. It has been shown to be feasible for V and H polarization, as well as the ratio. While it has not yet been adapted directly to passive systems to my knowledge, and the authors are breaking some ground in that regard, decade+ long precedent of established research should not be neglected because a different “measurement device” is being used. That said, this is an easy fix and can only strengthen the paper.
- Does the passive microwave approach perform better than the active one using this temperature driven threshold? Can you hypothesize comparing your results to previous studies? That would be interesting.
- How would you think your approach would do in Arctic permafrost regions, do you have reason to believe it would do well/not well?
- Line 455 to 460: many of these points are also touched up on in the papers I have listed below.
Some publications to consider (there is more out there, these are just some suggestions):
Naeimi et al., "ASCAT Surface State Flag (SSF): Extracting Information on Surface Freeze/Thaw Conditions From Backscatter Data Using an Empirical Threshold-Analysis Algorithm," in IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 50, no. 7, pp. 2566-2582, July 2012, doi: 10.1109/TGRS.2011.2177667.
Bartsch, A., Muri, X., Hetzenecker, M., Rautiainen, K., Bergstedt, H., Wuite, J., Nagler, T., and Nicolsky, D.: Benchmarking passive-microwave-satellite-derived freeze–thaw datasets, The Cryosphere, 19, 459–483, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-19-459-2025, 2025.
Bergstedt, Helena, et al. "Deriving a frozen area fraction from metop ASCAT backscatter based on Sentinel-1." IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 58.9 (2020): 6008-6019.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3630-RC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Renato Pardo Lara, 11 Jun 2026
We thank the editor, referees, and community commenter for their careful and constructive engagement with this manuscript, which has materially strengthened the work. We are grateful to the handling editor for comments on readability and scope; to Referee #1 for their close reading and detailed suggestions; to Dr. Jacobs (Referee #2) for her thorough and incisive review, the comments on threshold uncertainty prompted a quantitative treatment that has improved the analysis; and to Dr. Glaser for his constructive community comment on conductivity hysteresis near the freeze–thaw transition. Our point-by-point responses to all comments are provided in the attached supplement.
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3630: Sub-freezing Electrical Conductivity Hysteresis', Dan R. Glaser, 11 Feb 2026
Dear Authors,
I appreciated this preprint, and I found the SurFC/SurTC framework especially compelling for relating thermodynamic temperature to remotely sensed L-band brightness temperatures. The approach aligns with what we have been observing in near-surface electrical measurements of frozen soils, particularly regarding the physical controls on low-temperature dielectric behavior.
One aspect that may be relevant to your discussion is the growing evidence that complex electrical conductivity exhibits strong hysteresis at sub-freezing temperatures, even when measured at the same thermodynamic temperature. Laboratory studies have shown that conductivity during freezing and thawing can differ by more than an order of magnitude because of changes in unfrozen water content, pore-ice configuration, and interfacial polarization processes. These effects are also soil-type-dependent, with frost-susceptible silts and clays exhibiting the largest hysteretic response due to their finer pore structures and greater bound-water fractions. Relevant studies include:
- Garcia & Glaser (2025), Sub-freezing Complex Electrical Conductivity Hysteresis in Frost-Susceptible Soils, Geophysical Journal International, https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggaf335
- Liu et al. (2022), Experimental and Numerical Analysis of Soil Electrical Resistivity Under Subfreezing Conditions, Journal of Applied Geophysics, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2022.104671
Field observations also show that this hysteresis persists at the landscape scale, with clear depth dependence across the seasonal transition on the Arctic Coastal Plain:
- Glaser, Garcia, Sullivan & Versteeg (2025), Electrical Hysteresis in Frozen Soils: Laboratory Insights and Field Observations from the Arctic Coastal Plain, AGU Fall Meeting.
Because passive microwave retrievals respond to the soil’s bulk dielectric properties, and because the real part of the dielectric constant at L-band is influenced by both liquid water/ice content and low-frequency conduction pathways, hysteretic conductivity behavior may help explain ambiguity in fixed freeze–thaw thresholds such as the commonly used 0.15 °C discriminator. The data-driven SurTC-based threshold introduced here provides an interesting pathway for capturing this more complex behavior at the satellite footprint scale.
If helpful, I would be happy to share the AGU poster summarizing the field-scale observations; please feel free to contact me if you would like a copy.
— Dan R. Glaser, Near-Surface Geophysics Group, USACE-ERDC Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL)
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3630-CC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on CC1: Sub-freezing Electrical Conductivity Hysteresis', Renato Pardo Lara, 16 Feb 2026
Thank you for the thoughtful comment and references. The hysteresis observed in near-surface electrical properties at the same thermodynamic temperature strengthens the physical case for threshold ambiguity and supports our motivation for moving beyond fixed temperature discriminators. We plan to cite Garcia & Glaser (2025) and Liu et al. (2022) in future revisions, and we appreciate the connection to field-scale Arctic observations as well.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3630-AC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Renato Pardo Lara, 11 Jun 2026
We thank the editor, referees, and community commenter for their careful and constructive engagement with this manuscript, which has materially strengthened the work. We are grateful to the handling editor for comments on readability and scope; to Referee #1 for their close reading and detailed suggestions; to Dr. Jacobs (Referee #2) for her thorough and incisive review, the comments on threshold uncertainty prompted a quantitative treatment that has improved the analysis; and to Dr. Glaser for his constructive community comment on conductivity hysteresis near the freeze–thaw transition. Our point-by-point responses to all comments are provided in the attached supplement.
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3630', Jennifer Jacobs, 16 Mar 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-3630/egusphere-2025-3630-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Renato Pardo Lara, 11 Jun 2026
We thank the editor, referees, and community commenter for their careful and constructive engagement with this manuscript, which has materially strengthened the work. We are grateful to the handling editor for comments on readability and scope; to Referee #1 for their close reading and detailed suggestions; to Dr. Jacobs (Referee #2) for her thorough and incisive review, the comments on threshold uncertainty prompted a quantitative treatment that has improved the analysis; and to Dr. Glaser for his constructive community comment on conductivity hysteresis near the freeze–thaw transition. Our point-by-point responses to all comments are provided in the attached supplement.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Renato Pardo Lara, 11 Jun 2026
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,740 | 3,235 | 239 | 5,214 | 167 | 167 |
- HTML: 1,740
- PDF: 3,235
- XML: 239
- Total: 5,214
- BibTeX: 167
- EndNote: 167
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Review „Satellite-Based Extension of the Soil Freezing Curve Paradigm: Detecting Extrinsic Freeze/Thaw Thresholds with SMAP in Mid-Latitudinal Agricultural Fields“
The authors present a well written and thoughtful study on a relevant issue. In my opinion this manuscript will contribute to the field and fits well into the Cryosphere journal. In the following, I listed some comments that, in my opinion, will strengthen the paper
General comments:
The paper is well grounded in literature regarding passive microwave remote sensing and laboratory studies, however it is lacking in some respects regarding active systems. While some methodological aspects may be different, similar ideas regarding freeze/thaw retrieval have been explored with active systems (e.g. ASCAT, Sentinel-1) which should be touched on in the introduction and discussion. I will list a couple of suggestions of papers to cite at the end, but the authors should also do their own literature research in this direction.
Specific comments:
Some publications to consider (there is more out there, these are just some suggestions):
Naeimi et al., "ASCAT Surface State Flag (SSF): Extracting Information on Surface Freeze/Thaw Conditions From Backscatter Data Using an Empirical Threshold-Analysis Algorithm," in IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 50, no. 7, pp. 2566-2582, July 2012, doi: 10.1109/TGRS.2011.2177667.
Bartsch, A., Muri, X., Hetzenecker, M., Rautiainen, K., Bergstedt, H., Wuite, J., Nagler, T., and Nicolsky, D.: Benchmarking passive-microwave-satellite-derived freeze–thaw datasets, The Cryosphere, 19, 459–483, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-19-459-2025, 2025.
Bergstedt, Helena, et al. "Deriving a frozen area fraction from metop ASCAT backscatter based on Sentinel-1." IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 58.9 (2020): 6008-6019.