A number of global surface soil moisture (SM) datasets have been retrieved from the L-band frequency Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP) and the Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity (SMOS) missions to study the terrestrial water, energy, and carbon cycles. This paper presents the performance of the recently developed 9 km global SMAP product (hereafter SMAP-INRAE-BORDEAUX, SMAP-IB9). The product retrieves SM from the 9 km SMAP radiometric products using the forward model (L-MEB, L-band Microwave Emission of the Biosphere) of SMOS INRA-CESBIO (SMOS-IC) and SMOS L2 algorithms. We inter-compared SMAP-IB9 with two other products with a similar grid resolution (similar to 10 km): the SMAP Enhanced Level-3 SM dataset (SMAP-E) and the enhanced global dataset for the land component of the fifth generation of European reanalysis (ERA5-Land) with the main objective of assessing the discrepancy in accuracy between remotely sensed and model SM datasets. We found that ERA5-Land and SMAP-IB9 SM had the overall highest correlations (R = 0.62(+/- 0.15) for ERA5-Land vs. 0.60 (+/- 0.17) for SMAP-IB9 and 0.50(+/- 0.15) for SMAP-E) by comparing with the International Soil Moisture Network (ISMN) in-situ measurements from 22 networks. ERA5-Land showed better performances in the forest areas where SMAP-IB9 and SMAP-E still showed high potential in detecting the time variations of the observed SM, particularly in terms of median correlation values (0.62(+/- 0.18) for SMAP-IB9 vs. 0.66(+/- 0.16) for ERA5-and). The discrepancy in R between satellite and model SM products that were reported in some past studies has decreased to statistically insignificant levels over time. For instance, in the non-forest areas, we found that the latest versions of the SMAP SM products (SMAP-E and SMAP-IB9) had relatively comparable performances with ERA5-Land with regard to median ubRMSE (0.07(+/- 0.02) m(3)/m(3) for both SMAP-E and ERA5-Land) and R (0.59 (+/- 0.16) for SMAP-IB9 vs. 0.61(+/- 0.15) for ERA5-Land), respectively.

In many high altitude river basins, the hydro-climatic regimes and the spatial and temporal distribution of precipitation are little known, complicating efforts to quantify current and future water availability. Scarce, or non-existent, gauged observations at high altitudes coupled with complex weather systems and orographic effects further prevent a realistic and comprehensive assessment of precipitation. Quantifying the contribution from seasonal snow and glacier melt to the river runoff for a high altitude, melt dependent region is especially difficult. Global scale precipitation products, in combination with precipitation-runoff modelling may provide insights to the hydro-climatic regimes for such data scarce regions. In this study two global precipitation products; the high resolution (0.1 degrees x 0.1 degrees), newly developed ERA5-Land, and a coarser resolution (0.55 degrees x 0.55 degrees) JRA-55, are used to simulate snow/glacier melts and runoff for the Gilgit Basin, a sub-basin of the Indus. A hydrological precipitation-runoff model, the Distance Distribution Dynamics (DDD), requires minimum input data and was developed for snow dominated catchments. The mean of total annual precipitation from 1995 to 2010 data was estimated at 888 mm and 951 mm by ERA5-Land and JRA-55, respectively. The daily runoff simulation obtained a Kling Gupta efficiency (KGE) of 0.78 and 0.72 with ERA5-Land and JRA-55 based simulations, respectively. The simulated snow cover area (SCA) was validated using MODIS SCA and the results are quite promising on daily, monthly and annual scales. Our result showed an overall contribution to the river flow as about 26% from rainfall, 37-38% from snow melt, 31% from glacier melt and 5% from soil moisture. These melt simulations are in good agreement with the overall hydro-climatic regimes and seasonality of the area. The proxy energy balance approach in the DDD model, used to estimate snow melt and evapotranspiration, showed robust behaviour and potential for being employed in data poor basins. (c) 2021 Published by Elsevier B.V.