Remote sensing of vegetation and soil moisture content in Atlantic humid mountains with Sentinel-1 and 2 satellite sensor data

Abstract

The satellite monitoring of vegetation moisture content (VMC) and soil moisture content (SMC) in Southern European Atlantic mountains remains poorly understood but is a fundamental tool to better manage landscape moisture dynamics under climate change. In the Atlantic humid mountains of Portugal, we investigated an empirical model incorporating satellite (Sentinel-1 radar, S1; Sentinel-2 optical, S2) and ancillary predictors (topography and vegetation cover type) to monitor VMC (%) and SMC (%). Predictors derived from the S1 (VV, HH and VV/HH) and S2 (NDVI and NDMI) are compared to field measurements of VMC (n = 48) and SMC (n = 48) obtained during the early, mid and end of summer. Linear regression modelling was applied to uncover the feasibility of a landscape model for VMC and SMC, the role of vegetation type models (i.e. native forest, grasslands and shrubland) to enhance predictive capacity and the seasonal variation in the relationships between satellite predictors and VMC and SMC. Results revealed a significant but weak relationship between VMC and predictors at landscape level (R2 = 0.30, RMSEcv = 69.9 %) with S2_NDMI and vegetation cover type being the only significant predictors. The relationship improves in vegetation type models for grasslands (R2 = 0.35, RMSEcv = 95.0 % with S2_NDVI) and shrublands conditions (R2 = 0.52, RMSEcv = 45.3 %). A model incorporating S2_NDVI and S1_VV explained 52 % of the variation in VMC in shrublands. The relationship between SMC and satellite predictors at the landscape level was also weak, with only the S2_NDMI and vegetation cover type exhibiting a significant relationship (R2 = 0.28, RMSEcv = 18.9 %). Vegetation type models found significant associations with SMC only in shrublands (R2 = 0.31, RMSEcv = 9.03 %) based on the S2_NDMI and S1_VV/VH ratio. The seasonal analysis revealed however that predictors associated to VMC and SMC may vary over the summer. The relationships with VMC were stronger in the early summer (R2 = 0.31, RMSEcv = 90.1 %; based on S2_NDMI) and mid (R2 = 0.37, RMSEcv = 70.8 %; based on S2_NDVI), butnon-significant in the end of summer. Similar pattern was found for SMC, where the link with predictors decreases from the early summer (R2 = 0.33, RMSEcv = 16.0 %; based on S1_VH) and mid summer (R2 = 0.30, RMSEcv = 17.8 %; based on S2_NDMI) to the end of summer (non-significant). Overall, the hypothesis of a universal landscape model for VMC and SMC was not fully supported. Vegetation type models showed promise, particularly for VMC in shrubland conditions. Sentinel optical and radar data were the most significant predictors in all models, despite the inclusion of ancillary predictors. S2_NDVI, S2_NDMI, S1_VV and S1_VV/VH ratio were the most relevant predictors for VMC and, to a lesser extent, SMC. Future research should quantify misregistration effects using plot vs. moving window values for the satellite predictors, consider meteorological control factors, and enhance sampling to overcome a main limitation of our study, small sample size.