What Limits the Accuracy of Widely Used Soil Moisture Products? An LSTM Diagnostic of SMAP and ERA5-Land at COSMOS-UK
Authors:
- Nedal AqelNANedal Aqel
- Andreas CollianderACAndreas Colliander
- Simone Bircher-AdrotSBSimone Bircher-Adrot
- Andrea CarminatiACAndrea Carminati
- Peter LehmannPLPeter Lehmann
Preprint
- 29 July 2026
- preprint
- Published by Elsevier in SSRN Electronic Journal
Abstract
Soil water content underpins hydrological, ecosystem, and land–atmosphere processes, and estimates based on SMAP and ERA5-Land support climate modelling and land management. Yet these products often disagree with in situ observations in magnitude and dynamic range, and it remains unclear whether this reflects poor representation of wetting–drying dynamics or the absolute water-content range (or both). A Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) model was developed to represent relative wetting–drying dynamics from horizontally polarised SMAP brightness temperature and ERA5-Land precipitation and potential evaporation. LSTM-model predictions were converted into absolute soil water content using site-specific minimum and maximum water contents (hydrological bounds) deduced from observations, SMAP soil moisture retrieval (SMAP-SM), or ERA5-Land soil moisture predictions (ERA5-SM). The model was trained at three COSMOS-UK sites and evaluated at 16 independent COSMOS-UK sites using field-scale cosmic-ray neutron sensing (CRNS) and point-scale time-domain transmissometry (TDT), with SMAP-SM and ERA5-SM as benchmarks. Despite the small number of input variables, the LSTM-model was equally good or better than the other products. Using observed bounds, the LSTM-model achieved median RMSEs of 4.4 (CRNS) and 6.7 percentage points (TDT), with near-zero bias; SMAP-SM was dry-biased and ERA5-SM wet-biased. Product-derived bounds increased absolute errors. With respect to anomaly dynamics, ERA5-SM slightly outperformed the LSTM-model, while SMAP-SM was weakest. The results indicate that SMAP-SM and ERA5-SM track relative dynamics more reliably than absolute soil water content. Future research must invest in both (i) estimating relative soil moisture dynamics and (ii) assessing the hydrological bounds to translate those dynamics into absolute values.Keywords
This publication has 37 references indexed in Scilit:
- The ERA5 global reanalysisQuarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 2020
- Four decades of microwave satellite soil moisture observations: Part 1. A review of retrieval algorithmsAdvances in Water Resources, 2017
- Validation of SMAP surface soil moisture products with core validation sitesRemote Sensing of Environment, 2017
- Revisiting hydraulic hysteresis based on long‐term monitoring of hydraulic states in lysimetersWater Resources Research, 2016
- Footprint characteristics revised for field‐scale soil moisture monitoring with cosmic‐ray neutronsWater Resources Research, 2015
- Surface soil moisture retrievals from remote sensing: Current status, products & future trendsPhysics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 2015
- Absolute versus temporal anomaly and percent of saturation soil moisture spatial variability for six networks worldwideWater Resources Research, 2014
- Investigating soil moisture–climate interactions in a changing climate: A reviewEarth-Science Reviews, 2010
- L-band Microwave Emission of the Biosphere (L-MEB) Model: Description and calibration against experimental data sets over crop fieldsRemote Sensing of Environment, 2007
- Passive microwave remote sensing of soil moistureJournal of Hydrology, 1996