Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Table 1.

Overview of the four satellite soil moisture datasets being compared.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Indicator values for comparison of remote sensing data with GLDAS data.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 1.

Correlation coefficients and data quantity distributions over China for passive microwave soil moisture products; grids with less than 5 data points are blank.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Boxplots of mean DEM elevation for r and data quantity.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Boxplots of DEM elevation ranges for Biasr, RMSE and ubRMSE.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Boxplots of coefficients of correlation between SM data accuracy and land cover type for each product; abbreviations of landcover types are: PF paddy field, DL dry field, DF dense forest, DSS dwarf scrub and shrub, SF sparse forest, OF other forests, HCG high coverage grassland, MCG medium coverage grassland, LCG low coverage grassland, UL urban land, SA sand, GO Gobi, SAL saline alkali land, SL swampland, BL barren land, RG rock and gravel, OUL other unused land.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Histograms of Biasr for different landcover types; the abbreviations are the same as for Fig 4.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

Boxplots of land cover information entropy (H) for r, Biasr and ubRMSE.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Fig 7.

Boxplots of temperature condition for r and ubRMSE.

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Fig 8.

Boxplots of precipitation condition for r and ubRMSE.

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Fig 9.

Distribution of parameters across China for SMOS, AMSR2 and FY-3C soil moisture products given by triple collocation analysis; results are only shown for grids which all three datasets were positively correlated.

More »

Fig 9 Expand