An approach is evaluated for the estimation of soil moisture at high resolution using satellite microwave and optical/infrared (IR) data. This approach can be applied to data acquired by the Visible/Infrared Imager Radiometer Sensor Suite (VIIRS) and a Conical Scanning Microwave Imager/Sounder (CMIS), planned for launch in the 2009-2010 time frame under the National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS). The approach for soil moisture estimation involves two steps. In the first step, a passive microwave remote sensing technique is employed to estimate soil moisture at low resolution (similar to25 km). This involves use of a simplified radiative transfer model to invert dual-polarized microwave brightness temperature. In the second step, the microwave-derived low-resolution soil moisture is linked to the scene optical/IR parameters, such as Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), surface albedo, and Land Surface Temperature (LST). The linking is based on the 'Universal Triangle' approach of relating land surface parameters to soil moisture. The optical/IR parameters are available at high resolution (similar to1 km) but are aggregated to the microwave resolution for the purpose of building the linkage model. The linkage model in conjunction with high-resolution NDVI, surface albedo and LST is then used to disaggregate microwave soil moisture into high-resolution soil moisture. The technique is applied to data from the Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I) and Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) acquired for the Southern Great Plains (SGP-97) experiment conducted in Oklahoma in June July 1997. An error budget analysis performed on the estimation procedure shows that the rms error in the estimation of soil moisture is of the order of 5%. Predicted soil moisture results at high resolution agree reasonably well with low resolution results in both magnitude and spatio-temporal patterns. The high resolution results are also compared with in situ (0-5 cm deep) point measurements. While the trends are similar, the soil moisture estimates in the two cases are different. Issues involving comparison of satellite derived soil moisture with in situ point measurements are also discussed.
