In trying to extract the publishable results from Ageel Bushara Ph.D. thesis, a good work indeed, but weakened by my ignorance in remote sensing, I started a conversation with Luca Brocca, one of the most prominent young italian hydrologists. As befits in good conversations, Luca suggested some initial readings.
![]()
Here they are:
REFERENCES
1) Teuling et al. 2005 GRL they obtained good results comparing the spatial variability of the data but they do not have lateral flow of water
2) Brocca et al. 2013 JoH. As for Teuling, good results in the estimation of the spatial variability (however, the model is calibrated in any single point). Here we had a different scope, which was to obtain a lon soil moisture time series.
3) Walker et al. 2002 HYP using soil moisture estimates from SAR and comparison with ground data. IMHO not very good results (in Australia).
4) Li and Rodell 2013 HESS: they obtain that the spatial variability of in situ data (SCAN) is very different from the one modelled (Noah land surface model) and also different from the one obtain by another satellite (AMSRE, microwave passive sensor, 25 km). The study covers all the USA (CONUS).
REFERENCES
1) Teuling et al. 2005 GRL they obtained good results comparing the spatial variability of the data but they do not have lateral flow of water
2) Brocca et al. 2013 JoH. As for Teuling, good results in the estimation of the spatial variability (however, the model is calibrated in any single point). Here we had a different scope, which was to obtain a lon soil moisture time series.
3) Walker et al. 2002 HYP using soil moisture estimates from SAR and comparison with ground data. IMHO not very good results (in Australia).
4) Li and Rodell 2013 HESS: they obtain that the spatial variability of in situ data (SCAN) is very different from the one modelled (Noah land surface model) and also different from the one obtain by another satellite (AMSRE, microwave passive sensor, 25 km). The study covers all the USA (CONUS).