the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Fusing ERA5-Land and SMAP L4 for an Improved Global Soil Moisture Product
Abstract. Accurate, high-resolution soil moisture data are critical for hydrological modeling, climate studies, and ecosystem management. Unfortunately, current existing global products suffer from inconsistencies, coverage gaps, and biases. In this study, we evaluated the surface layers of three widely used soil moisture products, including ERA5-Land, ESA-CCI (v09.1 Combined), and SMAP L4 with resolutions ranging from 0.1° to 0.25°, against in situ measurements from 1,615 stations across five networks, including ISMN, CMA, Cemaden, COSMOS-Europe, and SONTE-China. The in situ dataset, to our knowledge, represents the most extensive global soil moisture compilation to date. It is found that ERA5-Land exhibits high correlation between measured and predicted soil moisture but the data also shows significant bias. SMAP L4 provides the highest accuracy, exhibiting low bias and root mean square error (RMSE), but is limited by its temporal coverage from 2015 to the present. To address these gaps, we developed an adjusted ERA5-Land dataset by fusing ERA5-Land and SMAP L4 using a mean-variance rescaling method optimized for long time-series alignment, which enhanced the spatiotemporal coverage and reduced bias. Validation against measured data demonstrates improved correlation with an increase correlation coefficient (r) of ~5 %, RMSE reduction of ~20 %, and NNSE improvement of ~15 % compared to the original products. The adjusted ERA5-Land dataset, which is publicly available, can be used as benchmark for future research and support drought monitoring, weather prediction, and water resource management, contributing to global climate resilience and informed decision-making across diverse ecosystems. The dataset is provided for the surface layer with global coverage at a spatial resolution of 0.1° and daily temporal resolution, spanning from 2015 to 2020, at https://zenodo.org/records/15816832.
- Preprint
(3034 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 27 Sep 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2025-410', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 Sep 2025
reply
This paper presents a new gridded dataset, evaluation of multiple products based on a newly compiled set of in situ observations, and interesting results. It is also very well-written. The only major flaw seems to be the temporal coverage of the new product. The new dataset spans only 2015-2020, which is the same temporal coverage as SMAP L4. Yet the short temporal coverage of SMAP L4 is one of the reason to develop this new product. It should be straightforward to create a 1950-present (or whatever maximum feasible duration under storage and data download speed constraints) dataset using the current mean and variance scaling coefficients and ERA5-Land. The pre-SMAP period will be less accurate, but it has a good chance of being better than the original ERA5-Land when compared to pre-2015 in situ observations, and the expanded temporal coverage will make this new dataset a much more significant addition to the many gridded soil moisture datasets already available.
Other minor comments are as follows:
1. line 20-21: The 5%, 20%, and 15% number are hard to infer for the readers from Fig. 11 or Table 1. Please either give accompanying percentages in Table 1, or give absolute values in the abstract. Also, please spell out the NNSE abbreviation.
2. line 93: Cheng et al. 2017 did not discuss ERA5-Land. Please delete.
3. Fig. 6 The comparison is for a single day. It will be more informative if the comparison can be over all days - perhaps showing the per grid RMSE during the entire overlapping period.
4. Fig. 7 The ESA-CCI and SMAP L4 rows are reversely labelled. Also, the monochrome colorbar makes it difficult to see seasonality - please change it to something easier to read.
5. The discussion on ESA-CCI data gaps around lines 420-430 is unnecessarily long. The nature of the gaps - high latitudes, vegetated zones, and alpine regions - is well-reported in the original ESA-CCI paper and understood to be related to microwave sensor limitations. The authors should condense the text substantially and either remove Fig. 8, or replace the 2015 information with more comprehensive information such as the percentage of available days in each season during the entire 2015-now period. Fig. 9 and its related description are okay, because they adds new information based on the new in situ dataset provided in this study.
6. Fig. 12 - it is very difficult to see regional variations due to overlapping dots. Perhaps summary graphs can be made for each continent (North America, Europe, Asia, South America, Africa) mentioned in the text description of this figure.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-410-RC1
Data sets
Fusing ERA5-Land and SMAP L4 for an Improved Global Soil Moisture Product Yonggen Zhang https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15816832
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
417 | 48 | 4 | 469 | 8 | 13 |
- HTML: 417
- PDF: 48
- XML: 4
- Total: 469
- BibTeX: 8
- EndNote: 13
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1