the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
A global, spatially seamless, daily FY-3B soil moisture dataset based on a spatiotemporal deep learning model
Abstract. The Fengyun-3B (FY-3B) satellite provides an effective platform for monitoring soil moisture (SM) from regional to global scales, and the produced SM data constitute an important component among various SM products. However, the Fengyun-3B (FY-3B) SM product contains a large number of missing data mainly due to orbital gaps, which significantly limit its applicability. To address this issue, a parallel spatiotemporal reconstruction model that integrates local fine-grained features and global semantic representations was proposed, called GSP (multi-scale Gated Convolution-residual Shifted Window Transformer Parallel) model. The GSP model fully utilizes the spatiotemporal information of FY-3B SM, and leverages the complementary modules to enhance spatiotemporal feature representation. Specifically, the multi-scale gated convolutions are applied to focus on the irregular valid pixels and extract multi-scale local spatiotemporal features, while the residual Shifted Window Transformer (Swin transformer) is leveraged to capture global spatiotemporal texture. Based on GSP, a global, spatially seamless, daily FY-3B SM dataset from 12 July 2011 to 19 August 2019 was generated. In the experiments, the model was evaluated with two strategies: 1) real gaps, where in-situ data at the same geographical locations were used as reference data, and 2) simulated gaps, where the original FY-3B SM data were masked by orbital gaps, and originally known data were used as reference. The results based on both strategies indicate that the GSP-reconstructed FY-3B SM data present greater accuracy than three typical reconstruction methods. The ubRMSE based on 17 sparse and five dense in-situ networks is 0.0703 m3/m3 and 0.0631 m3/m3, respectively. This dataset can be downloaded at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.30633548 (You et al., 2026).
- Preprint
(4678 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2026-79', Anonymous Referee #1, 01 Jun 2026
-
CC1: 'Reply on RC1', Yanling You, 08 Sep 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2026-79/essd-2026-79-CC1-supplement.pdf
- CC2: 'Reply on RC1', Yanling You, 18 Sep 2026
- CC3: 'Reply on RC1', Yanling You, 18 Sep 2026
-
CC1: 'Reply on RC1', Yanling You, 08 Sep 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2026-79', Anonymous Referee #2, 11 Sep 2026
The authors have motivated the problem well: there are significant data gaps in the time series of FY-3B SM daily products, particularly in the high northern latitudes. They are proposing to only use the good SM data, along with a spatiotemporal model for gap-filling, to create a complete daily SM time series for July 2011-August 2019. No ancillary data (precip, NDVI, etc) is used.
Major comments:
- Line 202: How were the data composited? Mean, min, max?
- Line 231: How are pixels determined to be “invalid”? Is there a flag in the original data?
- Lines 226-244: The description of the training approach is confusing and incomplete. How many patches are being used? Are there any patches for the regions with such low coverage as in the high latitudes of Fig 1? How are masks created for the patch for other time steps (not T)?
- Lines 248-252: Does “masked” mean it gets included? Or not included? Equations 1-2 suggests included, but the term could mean either depending on interpretation.
- Line 259: How are patches stitched together? How many patches are there?
- Line 277: Only the initial input is a four-month temporal average? Then more granular data is used?
- Section 3.3: Figure 1 demonstrates that there are some places without data almost entirely for the whole period. Are there in situ observations available in those regions to validate the algorithm for extremely data-poor pixels? Suggest creating a figure that easily visualizes the temporal coverage proportion (as in Fig 1) for each of the in situ stations to try to answer the question of if the stations used for validation represent different temporal coverage proportions.
- Fig 5: Commentary on why the station data has consistently lower values?
- Line 392: GSP seems to perform similarly to DCT-PLS. Have a mean R of 0.5387 is really not that great…
- Fig 6: There is very little network data for 3/5 dense networks. Why are the authors including the FY-3B data here but not in the Fig 5 for the sparse networks?
- Table 3: So the original FY-3B data performs better than the GSP model when comparing to station data?
- Section 5.3: I hesitate with the choice to consider the GLDAS-Noah as “truth” reference. If considering this the truth dataset, and it is spatially complete, what is even the advantage of the GSP dataset?
Minor comments:
- Line 256-7: Incomplete sentence
- Line 268: Does “feature fusion block” include CBAM and beyond?
- Fig 3: Add definition of yellow box (blue and green are defined). Consider breaking out the RSTL, STB, and CBAM definitions into separate figures (or at least delineate them from the main architecture diagram somehow).
- Table 1: How can SD_DEM be a dense network with only 1 station?
- Tables 2,3: Consider adding horizontal lines to separate each network.
- Figure 12: Although I understand the premise for this figure, it is very hard to see any detail with so many panels. Consider another way to demonstrate the stability of spatial patterns.
- Table 7: Consider doing the bold and underlined for the climate types with the best R, RMSE, MAE and ubRMSE values (like in previous tables)
- Line 577: Remove “(i.e.,” and just have a “:”
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2026-79-RC2 -
CC4: 'Reply on RC2', Yanling You, 18 Sep 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2026-79/essd-2026-79-CC4-supplement.pdf
Data sets
A spatially seamless, daily FY-3B soil moisture dataset based on GSP model Yanling You https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.30633548
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 368 | 162 | 96 | 626 | 95 | 84 |
- HTML: 368
- PDF: 162
- XML: 96
- Total: 626
- BibTeX: 95
- EndNote: 84
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
please see the file attached.