the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
A Preliminary Study on a Synergistic Assimilation Scheme for Multi-band Satellite Soil Moisture Data
Abstract. Soil moisture retrievals from satellite sensors operating at different microwave frequencies provide diverse and complementary data sources for assimilation. However, fully exploiting the advantages of each frequency band while increasing the volume of assimilated observations remains a challenge. This study assimilates soil-moisture retrievals from three dominant-frequency instruments—SMAP (Soil Moisture Active–Passive), ASCAT (Advanced Scatterometer), and MWRI (Microwave Radiation Imager)—into the Common Land Model (CoLM) via the Simplified Extended Kalman Filter (SEKF). On the basis of a systematic assessment of the disparate impacts of each single-band product, we propose and test a synergistic multi-satellite assimilation framework that optimally combines the complementary information inherent in the multi-frequency observations. Results show that assimilating soil-moisture retrievals significantly improves the accuracy of the CoLM land-surface model; nevertheless, the effectiveness of each product exhibits a pronounced dependency on vegetation type. Analyses of simultaneous multi-source assimilation indicate that, when SMAP and ASCAT products are already ingested, the additional introduction of MWRI data over low-stature vegetation further enhances the joint assimilation performance. Validation against in-situ observations across China demonstrates that the largest improvements occur in the central and western parts of the country: the domain-mean correlation coefficient rises by about 0.25, while the error declines from 0.068 to 0.058 m3m-3. This indicates that improvements from multi-sensor assimilation stem not only from increased data volume but also from the complementary characteristics of the assimilated products. These findings provide valuable insights into the design of synergistic multi-sensor land data assimilation systems and contribute to improving land surface modeling, as well as weather and climate prediction accuracy.
- Preprint
(18260 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 01 Apr 2026)
- CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5721', Nima Zafarmomen, 26 Jan 2026 reply
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5721', Wolfgang Wagner, 03 Mar 2026
reply
This study has investigated the impact of simultaneously assimilating satellite soil moisture data from L-band SMAP, C-band ASCAT and X-band MWRI into the Common Land Model (CoLM) for improving soil moisture estimates. The impact was evaluated by comparing both spatial and temporal soil moisture patterns with in situ data from the ISMN and the CMA networks. While the results of the study are interesting, further details are needed regarding the methodologies employed and the results obtained. Additionally, some interpretations presented appear speculative and require stronger justification.
MAJOR COMMENTS
1. The assertion that this work represents a 'paradigm shift' (Lines 414ff) is not supported by the existing literature. Numerous studies, including those conducted within the framework of the ESA CCI programme, have previously utilized complementary information from different satellite soil moisture sensors and developed dynamic weighting schemes.
2. The authors do not properly describe active and passive microwave sensors, and their specifications and characteristics. Most importantly, differences in the performance of the products cannot merely be explained by differences in frequency given that SMAP and MWRI are passive sensors and ASCAT is an active sensor. This leads to wrong statements and interpretations such as:
a. On line 72 they write: “Active microwave sensors offer finer resolution but lower temporal sampling due to long revisit periods.” This is only true for SAR, but not scatterometers.
b. Line 75: “L-band missions (SMOS, SMAP) penetrate vegetation well but exhibit larger errors over complex terrain.” Complex terrain is challenging for all microwave sensors, but certainly even more problematic for active than passive sensors.
c. Line 76: “C-band sensors (ASCAT, Sentinel-1) have high temporal resolution but variable accuracy across vegetation types and seasons.” Only ASCAT has a high temporal resolution, not Sentinel-1. One can note that – while it is true that the accuracy varies by vegetation type and season – this is nothing unique for active sensors. The same applies of course for passive sensors.
d. Line 90ff: “L-band sensors penetrate vegetation well and perform best in moderately vegetated areas; C-band sensors have moderate penetration and are sensitive to vegetation changes; X-band sensors have weak penetration and mainly capture near-surface signals.” This description is oversimplified and partly not true, e.g. ASCAT can be better than SMAP over moderately vegetated areas.3. There are some choices made in the assimilation (Section 3.3) which need much better justification than merely citing past research:
a. There is no logic in the selected pertubations for the different layers. Explain.
b. The authors state that the satellite soil moisture data are mapped into the second layer (7-28 cm). This counter intuitive given that the satellite data match much closer to the first layer (0-7 cm).4. The evaluation methods are not adequately described. For example, it is not fully clear what how the spatial correlation coefficients (R) and root-mean-square error (RMSE) relative ERA5-Land, shown in Figure 2, are calculated.
5. The interpretation of why L-band assimilation decays more rapidly is extremely speculative (lines 298ff: “While L-band performs best in regions with dense vegetation and high precipitation (Mousa and Shu, 2020), soil moisture in these areas is frequently influenced by strong meteorological forcings such as rainfall. As a result, the assimilated information is more likely to be masked by subsequent hydrometeorological variability, leading to faster loss of forecast skill.”) Please provide evidences that can support this interpretation.
6. The statement (Lines 301ff) that “In contrast, C- and X-band retrievals perform better in regions with low-to-moderate vegetation cover and more arid conditions.” is not fully correct. For ASCAT, it is known that subsurface scattering effects degrade the quality of the data in arid region.
7. The statement that “L-band performs well in densely vegetated areas, …” (Line 315) is highly problematic as also L-band cannot sense soil moisture below dense forests.
8. Considering the very small differences shown in Figure 11, it is hard to agree with the statement “the NEW experiment exhibits notably better performance” (Line 372).
MINOR COMMENTS
Section 2.1 must be much improved, providing more details about each data set used.
Section 2.1. Distinguish between spatial sampling and spatial resolution! E.g., the 12.5 km for ASCAT refer to the spatial sampling, not the spatial resolution (which is 25 km).
Section 2.2: Show a map with the location of the ISMN and CMA in situ stations.
Section 2.2: Specify how many ISMN and CMA stations were used in the study.
Figure 5: Not all names of vegetation types are self-evident. Describe.
Figure 9: Not clear what is shown. E.g. which sensor is R-single referring to?Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5721-RC1
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 120 | 40 | 14 | 174 | 12 | 17 |
- HTML: 120
- PDF: 40
- XML: 14
- Total: 174
- BibTeX: 12
- EndNote: 17
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
This paper investigates how soil moisture data assimilation can be improved by synergistically combining multi-frequency satellite observations. The authors assimilate soil moisture retrievals from SMAP (L-band), ASCAT (C-band), and FY-3D MWRI (X-band) into the Common Land Model (CoLM) using a Simplified Extended Kalman Filter (SEKF). Overall, the paper provides a meaningful contribution by shifting multi-sensor assimilation from a data-volume-drivenapproach toward a complementarity- and vegetation-aware strategy. Well fitted and written for publication.
1) The vegetation types used in Figures 5–7 are central to the paper’s conclusions. Adding a brief description of how these vegetation classes are defined (e.g., source dataset and thresholds) would improve clarity for readers not familiar with the classification scheme.
2) Some figures (e.g., Figures 5, 6, and 9) contain many panels and colors, which makes interpretation difficult. Increasing font sizes and simplifying legends would enhance readability.
3) A small number of grammatical issues remain (e.g., “improving the shill of the CoLM” in Section 3.4). A final round of language proofreading would further improve the manuscript’s presentation quality.
4) The experiments are conducted over a relatively short period (June–August 2022). While the results are convincing for summer conditions, soil moisture dynamics and microwave retrieval performance can vary substantially across seasons (e.g., frozen soils, snow cover, phenological changes). This limitation raises questions about the generalizability of the proposed vegetation-adaptive scheme. Extending the analysis to additional seasons or providing a clearer discussion of this limitation would strengthen the conclusions.
5) I strongly suggest that the authors acknowledge related studies that "assimilation of Sentinel-derived leaf area index to improve the representation of surface–groundwater interactions in irrigation districts." Citing and briefly discussing such work would strengthen the linkage between the proposed framework and existing literature, and help position the study within the broader context of land data assimilation research.