remote sensing

Article
Hybrid Methodology Using Sentinel-1/Sentinel-2 for Soil
Moisture Estimation
Simon Nativel 1 , Emna Ayari 1,2,† , Nemesio Rodriguez-Fernandez 1 , Nicolas Baghdadi 3 , Remi Madelon 1 ,
Clement Albergel 4 and Mehrez Zribi 1, *

1 CESBIO, CNES/CNRS/INRAE/IRD/UPS, Université de Toulouse, 18 Av. Edouard Belin, Bpi 2801,

CEDEX 9, 31401 Toulouse, France; [email protected] (S.N.); [email protected] (E.A.);
[email protected] (N.R.-F.); [email protected] (R.M.)
2 National Agronomic Institute of Tunisia, Carthage University, Tunis 1082, Tunisia
3 CIRAD, CNRS, INRAE, TETIS, University of Montpellier, AgroParisTech, CEDEX 5,
34093 Montpellier, France; [email protected]
4 European Space Agency Climate Office, ECSAT, Harwell Campus, Oxforshire, Didcot OX11 0FD, UK;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +33-56155-8505
† LR17AGR01 InteGRatEd Management of Natural Resources: remoTE Sensing, Spatial Analysis and Modeling
(GREEN-TEAM).

Abstract: Soil moisture is an essential parameter for a better understanding of water processes
in the soil–vegetation–atmosphere continuum. Satellite synthetic aperture radar (SAR) is well
suited for monitoring water content at fine spatial resolutions on the order of 1 km or higher.
Several methodologies are often considered in the inversion of SAR signals: machine learning
techniques, such as neural networks, empirical models and change detection methods. In this
Citation: Nativel, S.; Ayari, E.; study, we propose two hybrid methodologies by improving a change detection approach with
Rodriguez-Fernandez, N.; Baghdadi, vegetation consideration or by combining a change detection approach together with a neural network
N.; Madelon, R.; Albergel, C.; Zribi, algorithm. The methodology is based on Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 data with the use of numerous
M. Hybrid Methodology Using metrics, including vertical–vertical (VV) and vertical–horizontal (VH) polarization radar signals, the
Sentinel-1/Sentinel-2 for Soil classical change detection surface soil moisture (SSM) index ISSM , radar incidence angle, normalized
Moisture Estimation. Remote Sens.
difference vegetation index (NDVI) optical index, and the VH/VV ratio. Those approaches are tested
2022, 14, 2434. https://doi.org/
using in situ data from the ISMN (International Soil Moisture Network) with observations covering
10.3390/rs14102434
different climatic contexts. The results show an improvement in soil moisture estimations using the
Academic Editors: Wei Zhao, hybrid algorithms, in particular the change detection with the neural network one, for which the
Jian Peng, Hongliang Ma, correlation increases by 54% and 33% with respect to that of the neural network or change detection
Chunfeng Ma and Jiangyuan Zeng alone, respectively.
Received: 7 April 2022
Accepted: 17 May 2022 Keywords: soil moisture; Sentinel-1; Sentinel-2; change detection; artificial neural network
Published: 19 May 2022

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral

with regard to jurisdictional claims in
1. Introduction
published maps and institutional affil-
iations. Soil moisture is a key parameter for understanding different processes related to the
transfer of the soil–vegetation–atmosphere flux [1–3]. It is also an essential parameter in the
management of water resources, particularly for optimizing irrigation [4,5]. In this context,
remote sensing has greatly contributed to allowing the spatial and temporal monitoring of
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. this parameter at different spatial scales from global to local [6,7].
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. Most of the currently available operational surface soil moisture products are on a
This article is an open access article global scale with spatial resolutions of several kilometers. They are essentially based on
distributed under the terms and active and passive microwave measurements [8–12]. In passive microwaves, these are
conditions of the Creative Commons mainly products based on SMOS [8] and SMAP [9] missions dedicated to monitoring
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
soil moisture with L-Band measurements and other non-dedicated sensors using higher
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
frequency bands. In active microwaves, these are measurements based on acquisitions with
4.0/).

Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 2434. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14102434 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/remotesensing

Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 2434 2 of 16

a scatterometer, particularly data acquired by the ASCAT/METOP satellite series [13]. The
European Space Agency (ESA) Climate Change Initiative (CCI) soil moisture project also
provides long time series by merging soil moisture estimations from active and passive
sensors [14].
For soil moisture estimation at high spatial resolution, we identify products with an
average resolution at approximately 1 km or at the plot scale [15–24]. There have been
various studies that have developed methodologies based on low-resolution data disaggre-
gation techniques, notably with measurements acquired in thermal infrared (MODIS) [25]
or, more recently, data acquired by SAR sensors. The Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) tech-
nique offers a high spatial resolution estimate of the radar signal adapted to applications
at agricultural field scale. The measured signal is dependent on the radar configurations
(frequency, incidence angle, and polarization) and the dielectric and geometric properties
of the surface. After numerous demonstration space missions (ERS, ASAR/ENVISAT,
RADARSAT, etc.), the arrival of Sentinel-1 constellation [26] in the context of the Coperni-
cus program has enabled exponential growth in the use of these signals for monitoring soil
moisture and the dynamics of the vegetation cover. Other soil moisture products are then
offered only based on Sentinel-1 data, with three types of methodologies: one based on the
direct inversion of physical or semiempirical models [27–29]; one based on the application
of machine learning approaches and particularly neural networks [30–32]; and one based
on the change detection technique [33–35]. For example, at plot scale, El Hajj et al. [31]
presented an Artificial Neural Network (ANN) approach with training using the coupling
of the Integral Equation Model (IEM) and the Water Cloud Model (WCM) to provide an
estimate of soil moisture at the scale of the agricultural plot. Gao et al. [35] also proposed an
approach at the plot scale with greater consideration of the vegetation cover and its effect
on the temporal variation of the radar signal. Bauer-Marschallinger et al. [33] proposed
a change detection approach very close to the initial approach proposed with data from
ASCAT scatterometers [13] at a 1 km scale.
For these products, which are highly useful for regional hydrology, the validation
of existing products, despite the very interesting potential, still shows some limitations
in different contexts, in particular that of dense vegetation covers but also in relatively
complex contexts with strong heterogeneities in terms of land use and topography [36].
In this context, this study proposes to test hybrid approaches to soil moisture retrieval
at a 1 km scale with the objective of improving the estimation accuracy of soil moisture.
The approaches consider hybrid methodologies with a combination of a change detection
approach with empirical modeling or machine learning.
Section 2 presents in the first subsection the database used in this study in terms of soil
moisture data and satellite measurements. The second subsection presents the methodolo-
gies tested and proposed in this study. Section 3 illustrates the results. Section 4 includes
the discussion of the proposed applications. The conclusions are presented in Section 5.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Database
2.1.1. ISMN Soil Moisture Data
The training and validation of the proposed methods are conducted based on data
from the International Soil Moisture Network (ISMN) [37]. The data are available in con-
junction with additional datasets of Koppen–Geiger climate classes, ESA’s CCI land cover,
and soil characteristics. The upper soil layer (0–10 cm) moisture measurements are har-
monized as fractional volumetric soil moisture (m3 /m3 ) and converted into Coordinated
Universal Time (UTC). After data quality verification, some ISMN networks suffer from a
lack of measurements. Therefore, we considered 21 networks among a total of 71 spatially
distributed as shown in Figure 1. The data of each station should cover a period of two years
with at least 20 dates between the start and the end date of acquisitions—1 January 2015
and 19 August 2021, respectively. Consequently, in the same network, we retain only
stations with valid dataset as detailed in Table 1.
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 17

of two years with at least 20 dates between the start and the end date of acquisitions—1
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 2434 January 2015 and 19 August 2021, respectively. Consequently, in the same network,3 we of 16
retain only stations with valid dataset as detailed in Table 1.

Theglobal
Figure1.1.The
Figure globaldistribution
distributionofofthe
theInternational
InternationalSoil
SoilMoisture
MoistureNetwork
Network(ISMN).
(ISMN).

Overviewof
Table1.1.Overview
Table ofthe
theconsidered
consideredISMN
ISMNnetworks.
networks.

Number of NumberSM of SM
Network
Network Country Country References
References
Selected Stations Selected Sensors
Stations Sensors
Cappelaere et al. [38]; De Rosnay
Cappelaere et al.et[38];
al. [39];
De
AM-
Benin, Niger 7 CS616 Rosnay
Lebel et al. [40]; Mougin et et
al.al.[41];
[39];Pellarin
Lebel
MA-CATCH
AMMA-CATCH Benin, Niger 7 CS616 et al. [42]; Galle
et al. et
[40];
al.Mougin
[43]. et al.
[41]; Pellarin et al. [42];
BIEBRZA-S-1 Poland 8 GS-3 Musial et al. Galle
2016 [44]
et al. [43].
COSMOS USA 2 Cosmic-ray-Probe Zreda et al. [45]; Zreda et al. [46]
BIEBRZA-S-1 Poland 8 GS-3 Musial et al. 2016 [44]
HOBE Denmark 3 Decagon-5TE Bircher et al. [47]; Jensen et al. [48]
Zreda et al. [45];
FLUXNET-AM
COSMOS USA CS655, ThetaProbe-ML3
2 Cosmic-ray-Probe
Zreda et al. [46]
USA 4
ERIFLUX ThetaProbe-ML2X,
Bircher et al. [47];
HOBE
FR-Aqui France Denmark3 3
ThetaProbe ML2X Decagon-5TE
Al-Yaari et al. [49]; Wigneron et [48]
al. [50]
Jensen et al.
Zappa et al. [51]; Xaver et al. [52] ; Zappa et
GROW UK 20 Flower-Power CS655,
FLUXNET- al.2020 [53]
USA 4 ThetaProbe-ML3
AMERIFLUX
SPADE-Time-Domain-Trans Vreugdenhil M. et al. [54];
ThetaProbe-ML2X,
HOAL Austria 32
missivity Blöschl, Günter, et al.et[55]
Al-Yaari al. [49];
FR-Aqui France 3 ThetaProbe ML2X
CS655, Wigneron et al. [50]
IPE Spain 2 Alday et al. [56]
ThetaProbe-ML2X Zappa et al. [51]; Xaver
GROW
MAQU China UK 1 20
ECH20-EC-TM Flower-Power et al. [52];
Su et al. [57]; Dente Zappa
et al. [58] et al.
2020 [53]
MOL-RAO Germany 1 TRIME-EZ Beyrich F. and Adam W.K. [59]
NAQU China SPADE-Time-Domain- Vreugdenhil
2011 [60] M. et al. [54];
HOAL Austria5 32 5TM Su et al.
Transmissivity Blöschl, Günter, et al. [55]
CS655,
IPE Spain 2 Alday et al. [56]
ThetaProbe-ML2X
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 2434 4 of 16

Table 1. Cont.

Number of SM
Network Country References
Selected Stations Sensors
Su et al. [57];
MAQU China 1 ECH20-EC-TM
Dente et al. [58]
Beyrich F. and
MOL-RAO Germany 1 TRIME-EZ
Adam W.K. [59]
NAQU China 5 5TM Su et al. 2011 [60]
Gonzalez-Zamora
REMEDHUS Spain 13 Stevens-Hydra-Probe
et al. [61]
Canisius F. [62];
RISMA Canada 5 Hydraprobe-II-Sdi-12 L’Heureux J. [63];
Ojo et al. [64]
RSMN Romania 19 5TM
Hydraprobe-Sdi-
SCAN USA 130 Schaefer et al. [65]
12/Ana
Calvet et al. [66]; Albergel
SMOSMANIA France 15 ThetaProbe ML2X
et al. [67]; Calvet et al. [68]
Hydraprobe-Analog-
SNOTEL USA 84 Leavesley et al. [69]
(2.5-Volt)
TAHMO Ghana 3 TEROS10, TEROS12
Zacharias et al. [70];
TERENO Poland 4 Hydraprobe-II-Sdi-12 Bogena et al. [71];
Bogena et al. [72]
Stevens-Hydraprobe-II-
USCRN USA 77 Bell et al. [73]
Sdi-12

2.1.2. Sentinel-1
The first S-1A satellite was launched on 3 April 2014 and was followed by the S-1B
Sentinel satellite on 25 April 2016. This dual-satellite constellation offers a 6-day repeat
frequency for all regions of the globe [74]. The SAR payloads use a C-band frequency of
5.4 GHz and have the following standard operating modes: stripe map (SM), interferomet-
ric wide swath (IW), extra wide swath (EW), and WaVe (WV). In the present study, IW S-1
images are analyzed. They are characterized by a 10 m × 10 m spatial resolution and dual
VV and VH polarization measurements. All of the images were generated from the high-
resolution, Level-1 Ground Range Detected (GRD) product. The calibration is designed to
convert the digital values of the raw images into backscattering coefficients (σ0).

2.1.3. Sentinel-2
After the launch of Sentinel-2 A and B on 23 June 2015 and 7 March 2017, respec-
tively, optical data became free and open access with a spatial resolution varying between
10 m × 10 m and 60 m × 60 m and a revisit time of up to 5 days in 13 spectral bands
at visible and mid-infrared wavelengths. In the present study, we used Sentinel-2 sur-
face reflectance products downloaded from the Theia site (https://www.theia-land.fr/,
accessed on 16 May 2022), already orthorectified and atmospherically corrected with a mask
of clouds and shadows owing to the MAJA algorithm [75]. On each acquisition date and us-
ing red visible and near infrared bands with center wavelengths of approximately 665 and
833 nm, respectively, we calculated the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index ( NDV I )
and averaged this index for each studied station as expressed in the following equation:

R N IR − R Red
NDV I = (1)
R N IR + R Red
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 2434 5 of 16

where R N IR and R Red are the surface reflectance in the two bands, near infrared and red
visible, respectively.

2.1.4. Satellite Data Processing

Both radar backscattering coefficients and NDVI time series are identified at each
station. A temporal linear interpolation of NDVI data is proposed to estimate the NDVI at
each radar acquisition date. In this averaging, a filter is applied to the optical pixels to only
consider data between 0.15 and 0.8 of NDVI to avoid urban areas and water covers with
low NDVI or strong NDVI corresponding mainly to dense forests.
The radar signal is averaged over a radius of 500 m around each station. For a given
station, if more than 50% of the Sentinel-1 pixels are excluded, the processing of radar data
is not considered for the analyzed data.

2.2. Methodology
2.2.1. Change Detection Algorithm
The classic change detection SSM index ISSM is defined as [76]:

SSMt − SSMmin σVV − σVVmin

ISSM = = (2)
SSMmax − SSMmin σVVmax − σVVmin

where SSMt is the soil moisture content at time t; SSMmin and SSMmax are the minimum
and maximum values of in situ soil moisture, respectively; σVV is the radar signal at time t;
and σVVmin and σVVmax are the minimum and maximum values of the radar signal time
series, respectively. An index equal to 1 corresponds to the wettest context, and an index
equal to 0 corresponds to the driest context.
To convert this index ISSM to volumetric soil moisture at time t SSMt , we intro-
duce [77]:
SSMt = ISSM × (SSMmax − SSMmin ) + SSMmin (3)

2.2.2. Improved Change Detection Approach

For the classic detection approach, radar signal change is linked to soil moisture
change. It can be written as:
∆VV = α ∆SSM (4)
where the soil moisture changes and the radar signal change in VV polarization are ex-
pressed in Equations (5) and (6), respectively.

∆SSM = SSMt − SSMmin (5)

∆VV = σVV − σVVmin (6)

This relationship is adapted from [35,78]. It considers as a hypothesis that the differ-
ence between two radar signals acquired on two different dates is mainly related to the
change in the hydric state of the soil.
Here, we propose an improved change detection methodology by using a hybrid
change detection and empirical approach in which the effect of the vegetation is taken into
account thanks to a vegetation-related variable V1. Using this approach, the radar signal
change is related to the soil moisture change by the following expression:

∆VV = (α − β V1) ∆SSM (7)

Unlike forward modeling approaches such as the WCM, the radar signal and the
soil moisture are introduced as the difference between the radar signal at time t and the
minimum signal corresponding to the minimum moisture and the difference between the
soil moisture and the minimum moisture value, respectively.
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 2434 6 of 16

The main objective of introducing the change as a function of time is to reduce the
dependency to other variables affecting the radar signal such as soil roughness, which
can be very important, particularly in the context of strong topography or even important
spatial changes in microtopography, that change little with time for a given site, in contrast
to soil moisture. Two vegetation-related quantities were tested for the V1 parameter: the
optical vegetation index NDVI estimated from Sentinel-2 data, as illustrated in Section 2.3,
and the VH/VV ratio, considered to be strongly linked to the dynamics of the vegetation
cover. This second option could be particularly interesting in the context of a humid climate
with limited optical data.

2.2.3. Artificial Neural Network Hybrid Approach

The multilayer perceptron (MLP), which is a multilayer feed-forward ANN, is one of
the most widely used ANNs, mainly in the field of water resources [79,80]. A multilayer
perceptron has one or more hidden layers between its input and output layers. The neurons
are organized in layers such that neurons of the same layer are not interconnected and that
the connections are directed from lower to upper layers. Each neuron returns an output
based on a weighted sum of all inputs and according to a nonlinear function called the
transfer or activation function. The input layer, made up of different metrics from Sentinel-
1 and Sentinel-2 data, is connected to the hidden layer(s), which is made up of hidden
neurons. The final estimates of the ANN are given by an activation function associated
with the final layer called the output layer, using a sum of the weighted outputs of the
hidden neurons.
The ANN model architecture consists of three hidden layers of 20 neurons with a
rectified linear function (ReLu) as activation functions and an output layer with a single
neuron with a linear activation function. The mean square error was used as the loss
function and the gradient backpropagation was carried out using a first order stochastic
gradient-based optimizer (Adam).
Different predictors based on Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 were tested to estimate soil
moisture: VV, VH, incidence angle, VH/VV, NDVI, and ISSM .
1. The VV and VH signals are identified for their high sensitivity to soil moisture.
2. The classical change detection SSM index ISSM is calculated as a function of radar
backscattering coefficients in VV polarization to use it for soil moisture estimation.
3. The incidence angle has an effect on the contribution of soil and vegetation compo-
nents on the radar signal.
4. The NDVI index is identified to take into account the effect of vegetation cover on the
backscattering signal.
5. The VH/VV ratio is identified to take into account the effect of vegetation cover on
the backscattering signal [81].
6. SSMt estimated from the classic change detection approach described in Section 3.1,
Equation (2) is also considered as input.
The ANN models were trained using in situ soil moisture measurements retrieved
from the ISMN as target. The training of the ANN models was conducted using 70% of the
data samples. Thirty percent were kept for validation.

2.3. Statistical Parameters for Accuracy Assessment

Datasets are randomly subdivided into two parts: 70% of the database for model
calibration and 30% for validation. The training data are used to calculate the different
parameters to be estimated in the empirical and semiempirical models.
The Bias, root mean square error (RMSE) and Pearson’s correlation (R) are considered
to estimate the precision of the models.

Bias = Piestimated − Pimeasured (8)

Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 2434 7 of 16

r
1 N
2
RMSE =
N ∑ i =1 Piestimated − Pimeasured (9)

where N is the number of data samples, Piestimated is the estimated value of sample i, and
Pimeasured is the measured value of sample i.

∑iN=1 ( xi − x )(yi − y)
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW R= q q (10)
7 of 17
2 2
∑iN=1 ( xi − x ) ∑iN=1 (yi − y)

where xi and yi are individual samples taken at points indexed with the variable i.
3.1. Improved Change Detection Approach
3. Results
The empirical improved change detection approach has a double objective, taking
3.1.
intoImproved Change
account the Detection
effect Approach
of vegetation and limiting the effect of surface geometry. The cal-
ibration
The of 𝛼 and improved
empirical 𝛽 parameters change were conducted
detection by using
approach has a 70% of objective,
double the dataset selected
taking into
randomly (23869 samples). For the validation, the remaining 10,229 samples
account the effect of vegetation and limiting the effect of surface geometry. The calibration of the da-
taset
of wereβ used.
α and parameters were conducted by using 70% of the dataset selected randomly
(23869Figure 2 illustrate
samples). For thethe validations
validation, the of the different
remaining 10,229algorithms described
samples of the datasetin Section 3.2
were used.
testedFigure
with 2ISMN
illustrate
data.the
Thevalidations
proposed of the different
results show analgorithms
improvementdescribed in Section
in accuracy 3.2
by con-
tested
sideringwith
theISMN
effect data. The proposed
of vegetation cover results show an
in the tested improvement
relationships. TheinRMSE
accuracy(R)by con-
values
sidering
decrease the effect offrom
(increase) vegetation
0.074 mcover in thefrom
3/m3 (0.58) testedtherelationships. The RMSE
change detection (R) values
approach (Equa-
decrease
tion (2), (increase)
Figure 2a)from 0.074 m
to 0.073 m33/m
/m 3 3(0.59)
(0.58)for
fromthethe change detection
improved approach (Equation
change detection approach
(2), Figure 2a) 3 3
(Equation (7))towhen
0.073 the
m /mVH/VV (0.59)ratio
for the improved
is used as the change detection and
V1 parameter approach (Equation
to 0.068 m3/m3
(7)) when theNDVI
VH/VV ratioasisthe
used 3 3
(0.63) when is used V1 as the V12b).
(Figure parameter and to 0.068 m /m (0.63) when
NDVI is used as the V1 (Figure 2b).

(a) (b)
Figure 2.
Figure 2. Scatterplots
Scatterplots of
of the
the retrieved
retrieved surface
surface soil
soil moisture
moisture (SSM)
(SSM) as
as aa function
function of
of in
in situ
situ SSM
SSM
measurements colored according to NDVI value variation using two change detection approaches:
measurements colored according to NDVI value variation using two change detection approaches:
(a) classic approach and (b) new approach expressed in Equation (7), where V1 is the NDVI.
(a) classic approach and (b) new approach expressed in Equation (7), where V1 is the NDVI.

3.2. Neural
3.2. Neural Network
Network Hybrid
Hybrid Approach
Approach
The different combinations of input metrics are tested to estimate soil moisture.moisture.
Figure 3 illustrates
illustrates the results of validations applied for 30% of the database, each
the results of validations applied for 30% of the database, for case
for each
of combination with the statistical parameters RMSE and R.
case of combination with the statistical parameters RMSE and R.
 (a) classic approach and (b) new approach expressed in Equation (7), where V1 is the NDVI.

3.2. Neural Network Hybrid Approach

The different combinations of input metrics are tested to estimate soil moisture.
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 2434 Figure 3 illustrates the results of validations applied for 30% of the database, for each8 case
of 16
of combination with the statistical parameters RMSE and R.

Remote Sens. 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 17

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

(g) (h) (i)

Figure 3. Scatterplots of the retrieved SSM as a function of in situ SSM measurements using the
Figure 3. Scatterplots of the retrieved SSM as a function of in situ SSM measurements using the
ANN approach using multiple combinations of features: (a) VV, NDVI, (b) VV, NDVI, the incidence
ANN approach using multiple combinations of features: (a) VV, NDVI, (b) VV, NDVI, the incidence
angle, (c) NDVI, the incidence angle, 𝐼 , (d) VV, NDVI, the incidence angle, ∆ , (e) VV, NDVI,
angle, (c) NDVI,
the incidence the incidence
angle, ∆ , 𝐼 ,angle,(f) VV,ISSM , (d)the
NDVI, NDVI, the
VV,incidence incidence
angle, ∆ , 𝐼angle, ∆VV , (e)
, VH/VV NDVI,
VV, (g)
ratio, VV,
the incidence angle, ∆ , I , (f) VV, NDVI, the incidence angle, ∆ , I , VH/VV
NDVI, the incidence angle, ∆ , 𝑆𝑆𝑀 , (h) VV, NDVI, the incidence angle, ∆ , 𝐼 , 𝑆𝑆𝑀 , (i) VV,
VV SSM VV SSM ratio, (g) VV,
NDVI,
NDVI, the
the incidence angle,∆∆VV , SSM
incidence angle, 𝐼 , tVH/VV
, (h) VV,ratio, the .incidence angle, ∆VV , ISSM , SSMt , (i) VV,
NDVI,𝑆𝑆𝑀
NDVI, the incidence angle, ∆VV , ISSM , VH/VV ratio, SSMt .
For the first six predictor combinations (Figure 3a–f), we observe relatively close
precision with RMSE values in the range of 0.095 m3/m3 and 0.083 m3/m3 and R of 0.3–0.6.
The introduction of moisture estimated by the classic change detection algorithm (Equa-
tion (3)) as input to ANN allows a strong improvement in the accuracy of soil moisture
estimation with an RMSE equal to 0.063 m3/m3 and R = 0.76 when we consider the pre-
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 2434 9 of 16

For the first six predictor combinations (Figure 3a–f), we observe relatively close
precision with RMSE values in the range of 0.095 m3 /m3 and 0.083 m3 /m3 and R of
0.3–0.6. The introduction of moisture estimated by the classic change detection algorithm
(Equation (3)) as input to ANN allows a strong improvement in the accuracy of soil
moisture estimation with an RMSE equal to 0.063 m3 /m3 and R = 0.76 when we consider
the predictors: VV, NDVI, the incidence angle, ∆VV , and SSMt . By adding the VH/VV
ratio and ISSM , the RMSE value decreases to 0.062 m3 /m3 , and the correlation coefficient
reaches a value of approximately 0.79. This result confirms the contribution of the hybrid
approach to estimating soil moisture. This first estimated soil moisture strongly contributes
to a better estimate of soil moisture by the ANN.
Figure 4 illustrates the accuracy of intercomparisons between in situ measurements
and satellite estimates for the optimal case for different tested networks, where we represent
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 17
the RMSE and R parameters by blue and orange boxes. The RMSE values vary from
0.03 m3 /m3 to 0.09 m3 /m3 , and R-values fluctuate between 0.37 and 0.84.

Figure 4.
Figure Boxplots of
4. Boxplots of statistical parameters (R
statistical parameters (R and RMSE) of
and RMSE) of soil
soil moisture
moisture retrieval
retrieval as
as aa function
function of
of
ISMN-considered networks using the hybrid methodology
methodology of
of change
change detection
detection and
and ANN.
ANN.

Good consistency
Good consistencyisisgenerally
generallyobserved
observed forfor
networks
networkssuchsuch
as AMMA-CATCH,
as AMMA-CATCH, COS-
COSMOS, MAQU, RSMN, HOAL, HOBE, IPE, BIEBRZA S-1, TAHMO, REMEDHUS and
MOS, MAQU, RSMN, HOAL, HOBE, IPE, BIEBRZA S-1, TAHMO, REMEDHUS and
3 3 The NAQU network is
RISMA, and
RISMA, and RMSE
RMSE values
values are
are under
under oror equal
equaltoto0.05
0.05mm/m 3/m3.. The NAQU network is
3 /m3 and R value of 0.77.
characterized by
characterized by the lowest RMSE
the lowest RMSE value
value of
of 0.03
0.03 m
m3/m 3 and R value of 0.77.
Within the same soil moisture in situ network, the
Within the same soil moisture in situ network, the accuracy accuracy of of soil
soil moisture
moisture retrieval
retrieval
varies from one station
varies from one3 station to another. For the REMEHDUS case characterized by an RMSE
to another. For the REMEHDUS case characterized
3 , RMSE values per station range between 0.03 m3 /m3 and 0.09 m3 /m3 ,
by an RMSE
equal to 0.05 m /m
equal to 0.05 m3/m3, RMSE values per station range between 0.03 m3/m3 and 0.09 m3/m3,
and R
and R values
values vary
vary between
between 0.34
0.34 and
and 0.69,
0.69, as
as represented
represented in in Figure
Figure 5.5.
Remote Sens.
Remote Sens. 2022,
2022, 14,
14, 2434
x FOR PEER REVIEW 10
10of 17
of 16

Figure
Figure 5. Scatterplots of
5. Scatterplots of the
the estimated
estimated soil
soil moisture
moisture as
as a
a function
function of
of ISMN
ISMN measurements
measurements in
in the
the
REMEDHUS network per considered station.

4. Discussion
4. Discussion
The proposed hybrid approaches have allowed more or less strong improvements
The proposed hybrid approaches have allowed more or less strong improvements
compared to the initial estimates based on change detection or a separate ANN approach.
compared to the initial estimates based on change detection or a separate ANN approach.
With an improved change detection method, we observe a negligible contribution of the
With an improved change detection method, we observe a negligible contribution of the
considered vegetation cover compared to a basic approach directly linking the radar signal
considered vegetation cover compared to a basic approach directly linking the radar
to soil moisture. This can be explained by the highly diversified context at the scale of many
signal to soil moisture. This can be explained by the highly diversified context at the scale
soil moisture stations with very varied landscape contexts (crops, trees, bare soils, etc.) and
of many soil moisture stations with very varied landscape contexts (crops, trees, bare
different vegetation densities, which can generate significant noise in the modeling of the
soils, etc.)signal
scattered and different vegetation
that is difficult to takedensities, whichwithout
into account can generate
a moresignificant noise in the
precise description in
modeling of the scattered signal that is difficult to take
terms of land use. This noise is particularly observed with the VH/VV index, into account without a more
whichpre-is
cise description in terms of land use. This noise is particularly observed
very sensitive to the dynamics of the vegetation cover in a homogeneous context [81], but with the VH/VV
index,
it couldwhich is very
also mix sensitive
different to the
effects anddynamics
particularly of the
thosevegetation cover in [82].
of soil roughness a homogeneous
context [81], but it could also mix different effects and
To better analyze proposed results, we examined the time series of theparticularly those of soilinroughness
situ and
[82].
retrieved soil moisture per station and network. Figure 6 displays the time series of the radar
signal To(VV),
better analyze
NDVI, andproposed
soil moisture results,
SSM we examined the time series of the in situ and
t . The in situ soil moisture measurements are
illustrated in blue, and the hybrid approach resultsFigure
retrieved soil moisture per station and network. 6 displays
are drawn in red.the
Thetime series of the
intercomparison
radar signal
between the (VV),
proposed NDVI,approach moisture 𝑆𝑆𝑀
and soilperformance . Thethe
within in LasBodegas
situ soil moisture measurements
and Canizal stations
are illustrated in blue, and the
3 hybrid
3 approach 3 results
3 are drawn
reveals RMSE values of 0.04 m /m and 0.07 m /m , respectively. The two stations belong in red. The intercom-
parison
to between
the same the proposed
climatic region of approach
the arid steppeperformance within theaLasBodegas
and characterize clay fraction and Cani-
interval
zal stations reveals RMSE values of 0.04 m 3/m3 and 0.07 m3/m3, respectively. The two
of approximately 35%. The performance difference may be induced by the land cover,
stationsthebelong
where Canizal to station
the same climatic by
is occupied region
shrubs of and
the the
aridLasBodegas
steppe andstation
characterize a clay
is covered by
fraction
trees. Theinterval of approximately
aforementioned land cover 35%.mayTheimpact
performance difference
the accuracy of soilmay be induced
moisture by
retrieval
the land
due to thecover, wherevolume
vegetation the Canizalimpactstation
on theis occupied
radar signal by in
shrubs and theAdditionally,
the C-band. LasBodegas sta- the
tion is covered
measured by trees. values
soil moisture The aforementioned
are lower thanland 0.3 m 3 /m3may
cover impact
at the the accuracy
LasBodegas of and
station, soil
moisture
higher retrieval
values reachdue to3the
0.4 m /m3vegetation
at the Canizalvolume impact
station. on the
Hence, theradar signal
soil water in the retrieval
content C-band.
Additionally,
is more accurate theinmeasured
the first casesoildue
moisture values areoflower
to the saturation than 0.3
the C-band m /m
signal3 3 at the
at high LasBo-
values of
degas
soil station, and higher values reach 0.4 m3/m3 at the Canizal station. Hence, the soil
moisture.
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 17

Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 2434 water content retrieval is more accurate in the first case due to the saturation 11
ofofthe
16
C-band signal at high values of soil moisture.

(a)

(b)
Figure6.6.Scatterplots
Figure Scatterplotsof
ofthe
thetemporal
temporalevolution
evolutionof
ofradar
radarsignals
signalsin
inVV
VVpolarization,
polarization,NDVI,
NDVI,and
andthe
the
predicted and in situ measurements of soil moisture using the hybrid methods within two stations
predicted and in situ measurements of soil moisture using the hybrid methods within two stations of
of the REMEHDUS network: (a) LasBodegas station, (b) Canizal station.
the REMEHDUS network: (a) LasBodegas station, (b) Canizal station.

However,the
However, the approach
approach has difficulties
has difficulties for stations,
for certain certain stations,
as shown as shown for
for FLUXNET-
FLUXNET-AMERFLUX, GROW, SNOTAL, and
AMERFLUX, GROW, SNOTAL, and SMOSMANIA networks, where the RMSE SMOSMANIA networks, where the
values
RMSE values reach a maximum
3 3 of 0.09 m 3/m3. The analysis of these cases generally leads
reach a maximum of 0.09 m /m . The analysis of these cases generally leads to contexts of
to contexts
dense of dense
vegetation covervegetation cover that
that can induce a lowcan induce aof
sensitivity low
thesensitivity
radar signalof to
thesoil
radar signal
moisture.
to soil
In moisture.
Figure 7, we scatterplot the statistical parameters as a function of NDVI values. Ac-
cordingIn to
Figure
Figure7, 7a,b,
we scatterplot
we observethe thestatistical
increase ofparameters
RMSE and as Biasa values
functionas aoffunction
NDVI values.
of the
According
increase to Figure
of NDVI 7a,b,
values we observe
where RMSE can thereach
increase
0.10ofmRMSE
3 /m3 . and Bias valuesdevelopment
The vegetation as a function
of the
may increase
induce of between
a Bias NDVI values −0.06where
m3 /m RMSE
3 and can
0.04reach
m3 /m0.10 m3/mNDVI
3 , where 3. The vegetation de-
values exceed
0.5. This behavior may be explained by the C-band potential which is otherwise limited in
dense canopies where NDVI values are higher than 0.5.
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 17

velopment may induce a Bias between −0.06 m3/m3 and 0.04 m3/m3, where NDVI values
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 2434 exceed 0.5. This behavior may be explained by the C-band potential which is otherwise
12 of 16
limited in dense canopies where NDVI values are higher than 0.5.

(a) (b)

Figure 7. Scatterplots
Figure 7. Scatterplots of
ofstatistical
statisticalparameters
parametersofofthe
thehybrid
hybridapproach
approachperformance to to
performance retrieve SSM
retrieve as
SSM
aasfunction of NDVI
a function values
of NDVI stations:
values stations: RMSE,
(a)(a) Bias.
(b)(b)
RMSE, Bias.

This
This isis difficult
difficultto totake
takeinto
intoaccount
account in in a general
a general approach
approach based
based on aon a neural
neural net-
network
work
trained on stations with different types of surface conditions, such as the case of the
trained on stations with different types of surface conditions, such as the case of the
FLUXNET-AMERFLUX
FLUXNET-AMERFLUXnetwork. network.The Thestation
stationland
landcovers
coversareare
a mixture of grasslands,
a mixture of grasslands,tem-
porary
temporary cropscrops
followed by harvest
followed and bare
by harvest and soil
bareperiods, and woody
soil periods, savanna
and woody characterized
savanna charac-
by forest canopy cover between 30% and 60% and vegetation
terized by forest canopy cover between 30% and 60% and vegetation height exceeding height exceeding 2 m. In2
this
m. In land
thiscover
land context, the vegetation
cover context, volumevolume
the vegetation impacts the radar
impacts thesignal
radar and complicates
signal and com-
the soil moisture retrieval. We observe the vegetation impact within
plicates the soil moisture retrieval. We observe the vegetation impact within many many stations in sta-
the
SMOSMANIA network, such as the Mazan-Abbaye, Cabriers
tions in the SMOSMANIA network, such as the Mazan-Abbaye, Cabriers Avignon, and Avignon, and Ville Vieille
stations occupied
Ville Vieille stationsby occupied
trees or shrubs.
by trees or shrubs.
Furthermore, the use of NDVI as a vegetation descriptor may induce other limits,
Furthermore, the use of NDVI as a vegetation descriptor may induce other limits,
such as the availability of data in regions with temperate climates. The presence of clouds
such as the availability of data in regions with temperate climates. The presence of clouds
contaminates the surface reflectance, which damages the radiometric information. As a
contaminates the surface reflectance, which damages the radiometric information. As a
result, many time series suffer from gaps and lack data, which complicates the training and
result, many time series suffer from gaps and lack data, which complicates the training
validation of the proposed model, such as the case of some stations of the USCRN network,
and validation of the proposed model, such as the case of some stations of the USCRN
where the mean RMSE value is equal to 0.06 m3 /m3 .
network, where the mean RMSE value is equal to 0.06 m3/m3. 3 /m3 . This
By considering the GROW network data, the RMSE is equal to 0.07 m
By considering the GROW network data, the RMSE is equal to 0.07 m3/m3. This rel-
relatively low accuracy in retrieving soil moisture may be linked to the predominant cold
atively low accuracy in retrieving soil moisture may be linked to the predominant cold
climate of the considered stations. This low-temperature climate may impact the radar
climate of the considered stations. This low-temperature climate may impact the radar
signal, especially with the freeze–thaw phenomenon. This change in the physical state of
signal, especially with the freeze–thaw phenomenon. This change in the physical state of
the soil water content generates a fast variability in the Sentinel-1 signal, as discussed for
the soil water
agricultural content
plots generates a France
in metropolitan fast variability
by Baghdadiin theetSentinel-1 signal,
al. [83] and Fayad asetdiscussed
al. [84]. for
agricultural plots in metropolitan France by Baghdadi et al. [83] and Fayad et al. [84].
5. Conclusions
5. Conclusions
Different approaches have been proposed for SSM estimation from space. The goal is to
improveDifferent approaches
estimates have been
by combining changeproposed
detectionfor SSM
logic estimation
with empiricalfrom space.
or other The goal
approaches
is to improve
based on an ANN. estimates by combining
The study is based on change detection
Sentinel-1 logic with
and Sentinel-2 empirical
data tested onor the
other ap-
ISMN
proaches based
moisture network. on an ANN. The study is based on Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 data tested
on the ISMN moisture
Relationships network.
between temporal changes in radar signals and temporal changes in soil
Relationships
moisture are tested.between
Improved temporal
change changes
detectioninrelationships
radar signalscombine
and temporal changes
these effects within
soilcontribution
the moisture areoftested. Improved
vegetation change
through detection
two optical andrelationships
radar indicescombine
(NDVI and these effects
VH/VV
with the
ratio). Thecontribution
integration of the vegetation
effect ofthrough
vegetation twoslightly
opticalimproves
and radar theindices (NDVI
precision withandan
VH/VVthat
RMSE ratio). The integration
decreases of the0.074
slightly from effectmof3 /m 3 to 0.073slightly
vegetation m3 /m3improves
and 0.068the 3 /m3 for
mprecision
VH/VV and NDVI, respectively.
Testing an ANN approach through numerous metrics based on radar and optical (VV,
VH, VH/VV, NDVI, ∆VV, incidence angle, etc.) time series illustrates precision within a
0.08 m3 /m3 –0.09 (m3 /m3 ) range. These results are greatly improved with the integration
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 2434 13 of 16

as input of soil moisture estimated from the change detection approach. Thus, we move
on to precision below the bar of 0.07 m3 /m3 for the different possible combinations of
metrics. Thus, it seems highly useful to propose this combination to improve the precision
of the estimated soil moisture. Despite this improvement, there are some limitations at
some stations, particularly related to the vegetation density and presence of forests or
extreme climates with cold conditions. In the future, it would be very useful to propose a
spatialization of this approach by considering auxiliary information of soil properties and
land use for a better application of the proposed algorithms and improvement of proposed
precision. In fact, this allows us to distinguish effects due more precisely to vegetation for
which volume and attenuation scattering are different from one cover to another. For a
high-resolution scale, this aspect, which is generally not considered for a low-resolution
scale, seems important.

Author Contributions: S.N., E.A. and M.Z. developed methods and analyzed the data; all authors
contributed to the materials/analysis tools; and M.Z. and E.A. wrote the paper. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This study was funded by Projects; ESA No. 4000126684/19/I-NB “ESA CCI+” and TAPAS
TOSCA/CNES.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available in International Soil
Moisture Network (ISMN) https://ismn.geo.tuwien.ac.at/en/ and https://scihub.copernicus.eu/
sites (accessed on 16 May 2022).
Acknowledgments: The authors thank the International Soil Moisture Network (ISMN) and the
supporting networks for the availability of soil moisture data.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Koster, R.D.; Dirmeyer, P.A.; Guo, Z.; Bonan, G.; Chan, E.; Cox, P.; Gordon, C.T.; Kanae, S.; Kowalczyk, E.; Lawrence, D.; et al.
Regions of Strong Coupling Between Soil Moisture and Precipitation. Science 2004, 305, 1138–1140. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Anguela, T.P.; Zribi, M.; Hasenauer, S.; Habets, F.; Loumagne, C. Analysis of surface and root-zone soil moisture dynamics with
ERS scatterometer and the hydrometeorological model SAFRAN-ISBA-MODCOU at Grand Morin watershed (France). Hydrol.
Earth Syst. Sci. 2008, 12, 1415–1424. [CrossRef]
3. Albergel, C.; Zakharova, E.; Calvet, J.-C.; Zribi, M.; Pardé, M.; Wigneron, J.-P.; Novello, N.; Kerr, Y.; Mialon, A.; Fritz, N.-E. A first
assessment of the SMOS data in southwestern France using in situ and airborne soil moisture estimates: The CAROLS airborne
campaign. Remote Sens. Environ. 2011, 115, 2718–2728. [CrossRef]
4. Brocca, L.; Ciabatta, L.; Moramarco, T.; Ponziani, F.; Berni, N.; Wagner, W. Use of Satellite Soil Moisture Products for the
Operational Mitigation of Landslides Risk in Central Italy. In Satellite Soil Moisture Retrieval; Elsevier: New York, NY, USA, 2016;
Volume 7, pp. 231–247. [CrossRef]
5. Le Page, M.; Jarlan, L.; El Hajj, M.M.; Zribi, M.; Baghdadi, N.; Boone, A. Potential for the Detection of Irrigation Events on Maize
Plots Using Sentinel-1 Soil Moisture Products. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1621. [CrossRef]
6. Ulaby, F.T.; Bradley, G.A.; Dobson, M.C. Microwave Backscatter Dependence on Surface Roughness, Soil Moisture, and Soil
Texture: Part II-Vegetation-Covered Soil. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Electron. 1979, 17, 33–40. [CrossRef]
7. Jackson, T.J.; Cosh, M.H.; Bindlish, R.; Starks, P.J.; Bosch, D.D.; Seyfried, M.; Goodrich, D.C.; Moran, M.S.; Du, J.Y. Validation of
Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer Soil Moisture Products. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. Dec. 2010, 48, 4256–4272.
[CrossRef]
8. 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. [CrossRef]
9. Entekhabi, D.; Njoku, E.G.; O’Neill, P.E.; Kellogg, K.H.; Crow, W.T.; Edelstein, W.N.; Entin, J.K.; Goodman, S.D.; Jackson, T.J.;
Johnson, J.; et al. The Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP) Mission. Proc. IEEE 2010, 98, 704–716. [CrossRef]
10. Kim, H.; Parinussa, R.; Konings, A.G.; Wagner, W.; Cosh, M.H.; Lakshmi, V.; Zohaib, M.; Choi, M. Global-scale assessment,
and combination of SMAP with ASCAT (active) and AMSR2 (passive) soil moisture products. Remote Sens. Environ. 2018,
204, 260–275. [CrossRef]
11. Motte, E.; Zribi, M.; Fanise, P.; Egido, A.; Darrozes, J.; Al-Yaari, A.; Baghdadi, N.; Baup, F.; Dayau, S.; Fieuzal, R.; et al. GLORI: A
GNSS-R Dual Polarization Airborne Instrument for Land Surface Monitoring. Sensors 2016, 16, 732. [CrossRef]
12. Colliander, A.; Reichle, R.; Crow, W.; Cosh, M.H.; Chen, F.; Chan, S.K.; Das, N.N.; Bindlish, R.; Chaubell, M.J.; Kim, S.; et al.
Validation of Soil Moisture Data Products From the NASA SMAP Mission. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 2021,
15, 364–392. [CrossRef]
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 2434 14 of 16

13. Wagner, W.; Bloeschl, G.; Pamaloni, P.; Calvet, J.C. Operational readiness of microwave remote sensing of soil moisture for
hydrologic applications. Nord. Hydrol. 2007, 38, 1–20. [CrossRef]
14. Dorigo, W.; Wagner, W.; Albergel, C.; Albrecht, F.; Balsamo, G.; Brocca, L.; Chung, D.; Ertl, M.; Forkel, M.; Gruber, A.; et al. ESA
CCI Soil Moisture for improved Earth system understanding: State-of-the art and future directions. Remote Sens. Environ. 2017,
203, 185–215. [CrossRef]
15. Moran, M.S.; Hymer, D.C.; Qi, J.; Sano, E.E. Soil moisture evaluation using multi-temporal synthetic aperture radar (SAR) in
semiarid rangeland. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2000, 105, 69–80. [CrossRef]
16. Pierdicca, N.; Pulvirenti, L.; Bignami, C. Soil moisture estimation over vegetated terrains using multitemporal remote sensing
data. Remote Sens. Environ. 2010, 114, 440–448. [CrossRef]
17. Bousbih, S.; Zribi, M.; Lili-Chabaane, Z.; Baghdadi, N.; El Hajj, M.; Gao, Q.; Mougenot, B. Potential of Sentinel-1 Radar Data for
the Assessment of Soil and Cereal Cover Parameters. Sensors 2017, 17, 2617. [CrossRef]
18. Şekertekin, A.; Marangoz, A.M.; Abdikan, S. Soil Moisture Mapping Using Sentinel-1A Synthetic Aperture Radar Data. Int. J.
Environ. Geoinform. 2018, 5, 178–188. [CrossRef]
19. Hajj, M.E.; Baghdadi, N.; Belaud, G.; Zribi, M.; Cheviron, B.; Courault, D.; Hagolle, O.; Charron, F. Irrigated Grassland Monitoring
Using a Time Series of TerraSAR-X and COSMO-SkyMed X-Band SAR Data. Remote Sens. 2014, 6, 10002–10032. [CrossRef]
20. Srivastava, H.S.; Patel, P.; Sharma, Y.; Navalgund, R.R. Large-Area Soil Moisture Estimation Using Multi-Incidence-Angle
RADARSAT-1 SAR Data. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2009, 47, 2528–2535. [CrossRef]
21. Balenzano, A.; Mattia, F.; Satalino, G.; Davidson, M.W.J. Dense Temporal Series of C- and L-band SAR Data for Soil Moisture
Retrieval Over Agricultural Crops. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 2010, 4, 439–450. [CrossRef]
22. Ma, C.; Li, X.; McCabe, M.F. Retrieval of High-Resolution Soil Moisture through Combination of Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 Data.
Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 2303. [CrossRef]
23. Wang, H.; Magagi, R.; Goita, K.; Jagdhuber, T. Refining a Polarimetric Decomposition of Multi-Angular UAVSAR Time Series for
Soil Moisture Retrieval Over Low and High Vegetated Agricultural Fields. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 2019, 12,
1431–1450. [CrossRef]
24. Wang, H.; Magagi, R.; Goita, K.; Jagdhuber, T.; Hajnsek, I. Evaluation of Simplified Polarimetric Decomposition for Soil Moisture
Retrieval over Vegetated Agricultural Fields. Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 142. [CrossRef]
25. Molero, B.; Merlin, O.; Malbeteau, Y.; Al Bitar, A.; Cabot, F.; Stefan, V.; Kerr, Y.; Bacon, S.; Cosh, M.; Bindlish, R.; et al. SMOS
disaggregated soil moisture product at 1 km resolution: Processor overview and first validation results. Remote Sens. Environ.
2016, 180, 361–376. [CrossRef]
26. Kim, S.-B.; Moghaddam, M.; Tsang, L.; Burgin, M.; Xu, X.; Njoku, E.G. Models of L-Band Radar Backscattering Coefficients Over
Global Terrain for Soil Moisture Retrieval. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2013, 52, 1381–1396. [CrossRef]
27. Kim, S.-B.; Van Zyl, J.J.; Johnson, J.T.; Moghaddam, M.; Tsang, L.; Colliander, A.; Dunbar, R.S.; Jackson, T.J.; Jaruwatanadilok, S.;
West, R.; et al. Surface Soil Moisture Retrieval Using the L-Band Synthetic Aperture Radar Onboard the Soil Moisture Active–
Passive Satellite and Evaluation at Core Validation Sites. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2017, 55, 1897–1914. [CrossRef]
28. Bousbih, S.; Zribi, M.; El Hajj, M.; Baghdadi, N.; Lili-Chabaane, Z.; Gao, Q.; Fanise, P. Soil Moisture and Irrigation Mapping in A
Semi-Arid Region, Based on the Synergetic Use of Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 Data. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 1953. [CrossRef]
29. Ezzahar, J.; Ouaadi, N.; Zribi, M.; Elfarkh, J.; Aouade, G.; Khabba, S.; Er-Raki, S.; Chehbouni, A.; Jarlan, L. Evaluation of
Backscattering Models and Support Vector Machine for the Retrieval of Bare Soil Moisture from Sentinel-1 Data. Remote Sens.
2019, 12, 72. [CrossRef]
30. Notarnicola, C.; Angiulli, M.; Posa, F. Soil moisture retrieval from remotely sensed data: Neural network approach versus
Bayesian method. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2008, 46, 547–557. [CrossRef]
31. El Hajj, M.; Baghdadi, N.; Zribi, M.; Bazzi, H. Synergic Use of Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 Images for Operational Soil Moisture
Mapping at High Spatial Resolution over Agricultural Areas. Remote Sens. 2017, 9, 1292. [CrossRef]
32. Zribi, M.; Kotti, F.; Amri, R.; Wagner, W.; Shabou, M.; Chabaane, Z.L.; Baghdadi, N. Soil moisture mapping in a semiarid region,
based on ASAR/Wide Swath satellite data. Water Resour. Res. 2014, 50, 823–835. [CrossRef]
33. Bauer-Marschallinger, B.; Freeman, V.; Cao, S.; Paulik, C.; Schaufler, S.; Stachl, T.; Modanesi, S.; Massari, C.; Ciabatta, L.; Brocca, L.;
et al. Toward Global Soil Moisture Monitoring With Sentinel-1: Harnessing Assets and Overcoming Obstacles. IEEE Trans. Geosci.
Remote Sens. 2018, 57, 520–539. [CrossRef]
34. Foucras, M.; Zribi, M.; Albergel, C.; Baghdadi, N.; Calvet, J.-C.; Pellarin, T. Estimating 500-m Resolution Soil Moisture Using
Sentinel-1 and Optical Data Synergy. Water 2020, 12, 866. [CrossRef]
35. Gao, Q.; Zribi, M.; Escorihuela, M.J.; Baghdadi, N. Synergetic Use of Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 Data for Soil Moisture Mapping at
100 m Resolution. Sensors 2017, 17, 1966. [CrossRef]
36. Bazzi, H.; Baghdadi, N.; El Hajj, M.; Zribi, M.; Belhouchette, H. A Comparison of Two Soil Moisture Products S2MP and
Copernicus-SSM over Southern France. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 2019, 100, 10–18. [CrossRef]
37. Dorigo, W.A.; Wagner, W.; Hohensinn, R.; Hahn, S.; Paulik, C.; Xaver, A.; Gruber, A.; Drusch, M.; Mecklenburg, S.; van Oevelen, P.;
et al. The International Soil Moisture Network: A data hosting facility for global in situ soil moisture measurements. Hydrol.
Earth Syst. Sci. 2011, 15, 1675–1698. [CrossRef]
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 2434 15 of 16

38. Cappelaere, C.; Descroix, L.; Lebel, T.; Boulain, N.; Ramier, D.; Laurent, J.-P.; Le Breton, E.; Boubkraoui, S.; Bouzou Moussa, I.;
Quantin, G.; et al. The AMMA Catch observing system in the cultivated Sahel of Southwest Niger- Strategy, Implementation and
Site conditions. J. Hydrol. 2009, 375, 34–51. [CrossRef]
39. de Rosnay, P.; Gruhier, C.; Timouk, F.; Baup, F.; Mougin, E.; Hiernaux, P.; Kergoat, L.; LeDantec, V. Multi-scale soil moisture
measurements at the Gourma meso-scale site in Mali. J. Hydrol. 2009, 375, 241–252. [CrossRef]
40. Lebel, T.; Cappelaere, B.; Galle, S.; Hanan, N.; Kergoat, L.; Levis, S.; Vieux, B.; Descroix, L.; Gosset, M.; Mougin, E.; et al.
AMMA-CATCH studies in the Sahelian region of West-Africa: An overview. J. Hydrol. 2009, 375, 3–13. [CrossRef]
41. Galle, S.; Grippa, M.; Peugeot, C.; Moussa, I.B.; Cappelaere, B.; Demarty, J.; Mougin, E.; Panthou, G.; Adjomayi, P.; Agbossou, E.;
et al. AMMA-CATCH, a Critical Zone Observatory in West Africa Monitoring a Region in Transition. Vadose Zone J. 2018, 17, 1–24.
[CrossRef]
42. Mougin, E.; Hiernaux, P.; Kergoat, L.; Grippa, M.; de Rosnay, P.; Timouk, F.; Le Dantec, V.; Demarez, V.; Lavenu, F.; Arjounin, M.;
et al. The AMMA-CATCH Gourma observatory site in Mali: Relating climatic variations to changes in vegetation, surface
hydrology, fluxes and natural resources. J. Hydrol. 2009, 375, 14–33. [CrossRef]
43. Pellarin, T.; Laurent, J.; Cappelaere, B.; Decharme, B.; Descroix, L.; Ramier, D. Hydrological modelling and associated microwave
emission of a semi-arid region in South-western Niger. J. Hydrol. 2009, 375, 262–272. [CrossRef]
44. Musial, J.P.; Dabrowska-Zielinska, K.; Kiryla, W.; Oleszczuk, R.; Gnatowski, T.; Jaszczynski, J. Derivation and validation of the
high-resolution satellite soil moisture products: A case study of the biebrza sentinel-1 validation sites. Geoinf. Issues 2016, 8, 37–53.
45. Zreda, M.; Desilets, D.; Ferré Ty, P.A.; Scott, R.L. Measuring soil moisture content non-invasively at intermediate spatial scale
using cosmic-ray neutrons. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2008, 35, 1–5. [CrossRef]
46. Zreda, M.; Shuttleworth, W.J.; Zeng, X.; Zweck, C.; Desilets, D.; Franz, T.; Rosolem, R. COSMOS: The COsmic-ray Soil Moisture
Observing System. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2012, 16, 4079–4099. [CrossRef]
47. Jensen, K.H.; Refsgaard, J.C. HOBE: The Danish Hydrological Observatory. Vadose Zone J. 2018, 17, 1–24. [CrossRef]
48. Bircher, S.; Skou, N.; Jensen, K.H.; Walker, J.P.; Rasmussen, L. A soil moisture and temperature network for SMOS validation in
Western Denmark. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2012, 16, 1445–1463. [CrossRef]
49. Al-Yaari, A.; Dayau, S.; Chipeaux, C.; Aluome, C.; Kruszewski, A.; Loustau, D.; Wigneron, J.-P. The AQUI Soil Moisture Network
for Satellite Microwave Remote Sensing Validation in South-Western France. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 1839. [CrossRef]
50. Wigneron, J.-P.; Dayan, S.; Kruszewski, A.; Aluome, C.; Al-Yaari, A.; Fan, L.; Guven, S.; Chipeaux, C.; Moisy, C.; Guyon, D.; et al.
The aqui network: Soil moisture sites in the “les landes” forest and graves vineyards (Bordeaux Aquitaine region, France). In
Proceedings of the IGARSS 2018-2018 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, Valencia, Spain, 22–27
July 2018; pp. 3739–3742.
51. Zappa, L.; Forkel, M.; Xaver, A.; Dorigo, W. Deriving Field Scale Soil Moisture from Satellite Observations and Ground
Measurements in a Hilly Agricultural Region. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 2596. [CrossRef]
52. Xaver, A.; Zappa, L.; Rab, G.; Pfeil, I.; Vreugdenhil, M.; Hemment, D.; Dorigo, W.A. Evaluating the suitability of the consumer
low-cost Parrot Flower Power soil moisture sensor for scientific environmental applications. Geosci. Instrum. Methods Data Syst.
2020, 9, 117–139. [CrossRef]
53. Zappa, L.; Woods, M.; Hemment, D.; Xaver, A.; Dorigo, W. Evaluation of remotely sensed soil moisture products using
crowdsourced measurements. In Proceedings of the Eighth international conference on remote sensing and geoinformation of the
environment (RSCy2020), Paphos, Cyprus, 26 August 2020; Volume 11524, p. 115241U. [CrossRef]
54. Vreugdenhil, M.; Dorigo, W.; Broer, M.; Haas, P.; Eder, A.; Hogan, P.; Blöschl, G.; Wagner, W. Towards a high-density soil moisture
network for the validation of SMAP in Petzenkirchen, Austria. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE International Geoscience and
Remote Sensing Symposium-IGARSS, Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 21–26 July 2013; pp. 1865–1868. [CrossRef]
55. Blöschl, G.; Blaschke, A.P.; Broer, M.; Bucher, C.; Carr, G.; Chen, X.; Eder, A.; Exner-Kittridge, M.; Farnleitner, A.; Flores-Orozco, A.;
et al. The Hydrological Open Air Laboratory (HOAL) in Petzenkirchen: A hypothesis-driven observatory. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.
2016, 20, 227–255. [CrossRef]
56. Alday, J.G.; Camarero, J.J.; Revilla, J.; De Dios, V.R. Similar diurnal, seasonal and annual rhythms in radial root expansion across
two coexisting Mediterranean oak species. Tree Physiol. 2020, 40, 956–968. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
57. Su, Z.; Wen, J.; Dente, L.; van der Velde, R.; Wang, L.; Ma, Y.; Yang, K.; Hu, Z. The Tibetan Plateau observatory of plateau scale
soil moisture and soil temperature (Tibet-Obs) for quantifying uncertainties in coarse resolution satellite and model products.
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2011, 15, 2303–2316. [CrossRef]
58. Dente, L.; Su, Z.; Wen, J. Validation of SMOS Soil Moisture Products over the Maqu and Twente Regions. Sensors 2012, 12,
9965–9986. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
59. Beyrich, F.; Adam, W.K. Site and Data Report for the Lindenberg Reference Site in CEOP—Phase 1. Berichte des Deutschen
Wetterdienstes 2007, 230. Offenbach am Main.
60. Su, Z.; de Rosnay, P.; Wen, J.; Wang, L.; Zeng, Y. Evaluation of ECMWF’s soil moisture analyses using observationson the Tibetan
Plateau. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2013, 118, 5304–5318. [CrossRef]
61. Canisius, F. Calibration of Casselman, Ontario Soil Moisture Monitoring Network; Agriculture and Agri-Food: Ottawa, ON, Canada,
2011; 37p.
62. L’Heureux, J. Installation Report for AAFC-SAGES Soil Moisture Stations in Kenaston, SK. In Calibration of Casselman, Ontario Soil
Moisture Monitoring Network; Agriculture and Agri-Food: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2011; 37p.
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 2434 16 of 16

63. Ojo, E.R.; Bullock, P.R.; L’Heureux, J.; Powers, J.; McNairn, H.; Pacheco, A. Calibration and Evaluation of a Frequency Domain
Reflectometry Sensor for Real-Time Soil Moisture Monitoring. Vadose Zone J. 2015, 14. [CrossRef]
64. Gonzalez-Zamora, A.; Sanchez, N.; Pablos, M.; Martinez-Fernandez, J. Cci soil moisture assessment with SMOS soil moisture
and in situ data under different environmental conditions and spatial scales in Spain. Remote Sens. Environ. 2018, 225, 469–482.
[CrossRef]
65. Schaefer, G.; Cosh, M.; Jackson, T. The usda natural resources conservation service soil climate analysis network (scan). J. Atmos.
Ocean. Technol. 2007, 24, 2073–2077. [CrossRef]
66. Calvet, J.-C.; Fritz, N.; Froissard, F.; Suquia, D.; Petitpa, A.; Piguet, B. In situ soil moisture observations for the CAL/VAL of
SMOS: The SMOSMANIA network. In Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium,
Barcelona, Spain, 23–28 July 2007; pp. 1196–1199. [CrossRef]
67. Albergel, C.; Rüdiger, C.; Pellarin, T.; Calvet, J.-C.; Fritz, N.; Froissard, F.; Suquia, D.; Petitpa, A.; Piguet, B.; Martin, E. From
near-surface to root-zone soil moisture using an exponential filter: An assessment of the method based on in situ observations
and model simulations. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2008, 12, 1323–1337. [CrossRef]
68. Calvet, J.-C.; Fritz, N.; Berne, C.; Piguet, B.; Maurel, W.; Meurey, C. Deriving pedotransfer functions for soil quartz fraction in
southern france from reverse modeling. Soil 2016, 2, 615–629. [CrossRef]
69. Leavesley, G.H.; David, O.; Garen, D.C.; Lea, J.; Marron, J.K.; Pagano, T.C.; Strobel, M.L. A modeling framework for improved
agricultural water supply forecasting. In AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts; American Geophysical Union: Washington, DC, USA, 2008;
Volume 2008, pp. C21A–0497.
70. Zacharias, S.; Bogena, H.; Samaniego, L.; Mauder, M.; Fuß, R.; Pütz, T.; Frenzel, M.; Schwank, M.; Baessler, C.; Butterbach-Bahl, K.;
et al. A Network of Terrestrial Environmental Observatories in Germany. Vadose Zone J. 2011, 10, 955–973. [CrossRef]
71. Bogena, H.; Kunkel, R.; Pütz, T.; Vereecken, H.; Kruger, E.; Zacharias, S.; Dietrich, P.; Wollschläger, U.; Kunstmann, H.; Papen, H.;
et al. Tereno-long-term monitoring network for terrestrial environmental research. Hydrol. Und Wasserbewirtsch. 2012, 56, 138–143.
72. Bogena, H.R. Tereno: German network of terrestrial environmental observatories. J. Large-Scale Res. Facil. JLSRF 2016, 2, 52.
[CrossRef]
73. Bell, J.E.; Palecki, M.A.; Baker, C.B.; Collins, W.G.; Lawrimore, J.H.; Leeper, R.; Hall, M.E.; Kochendorfer, J.; Meyers, T.P.; Wilson, T.;
et al. U.S. Climate Reference Network Soil Moisture and Temperature Observations. J. Hydrometeorol. 2013, 14, 977–988. [CrossRef]
74. Schwerdt, M.; Schmidt, K.; Tous Ramon, N.; Klenk, P.; Yague-Martinez, N.; Prats-Iraola, P.; Zink, M.; Geudtner, D. Independent
system calibration of Sentinel-1B. Remote Sens. 2017, 9, 511. [CrossRef]
75. Hagolle, O.; Huc, M.; Villa Pascual, D.; Dedieu, G. A Multi-Temporal and Multi-Spectral Method to Estimate Aerosol Optical
Thickness over Land, for the Atmospheric Correction of FormoSat-2, LandSat, VENµS and Sentinel-2 Images. Remote Sens. 2015,
7, 2668–2691. [CrossRef]
76. Wagner, W.; Lemoine, G.; Rott, H. A method for estimating soil moisture from ERS Scatterometer and soil data. Remote Sens.
Environ. 1999, 70, 191–207. [CrossRef]
77. Pellarin, T.; Calvet, J.C.; Wagner, W. Evaluation of ERS scatterometer soil moisture products over a half-degree region in
southwestern France. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2006, 33, 1–6. [CrossRef]
78. Zribi, M.; André, C.; Decharme, B. A method for soil moisture estimation in Western Africa based on ERS Scatter meter. IEEE
Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2008, 46, 438–448. [CrossRef]
79. ASCE Task Committee on Application of Artificial Neural Networks in Hydrology. Artificial neural networks in hydrology. I:
Preliminary concepts. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2000, 5, 115–123. [CrossRef]
80. Tanty, T.S.D.R.; Desmukh, T.; Bhopal, M. Application of Artificial Neural Network in Hydrology—A Review. Int. J. Eng. Res.
2015, V4, 184–188. [CrossRef]
81. Veloso, A.; Mermoz, S.; Bouvet, A.; Le Toan, T.; Planells, M.; Dejoux, J.F.; Ceschia, E. Understanding the temporal behavior of
crops using Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2-like data for agricultural applications. Remote Sens. Environ. 2017, 199, 415–426. [CrossRef]
82. Baghdadi, N.; Zribi, M. Land Surface Remote Sensing in Continental Hydrology; ISTE Press: London, UK; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2016;
ISBN 9781785481048.
83. Baghdadi, N.; Bazzi, H.; El Hajj, M.; Zribi, M. Detection of Frozen Soil Using Sentinel-1 SAR Data. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 1182.
[CrossRef]
84. Fayad, I.; Baghdadi, N.; Bazzi, H.; Zribi, M. Near Real-Time Freeze Detection over Agricultural Plots Using Sentinel-1 Data.
Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1976. [CrossRef]